I found a 1997 paper called Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo by CB Ruff et al.
We often hear how prehistoric man was so robust and muscular, yet their estimated weights are surprisingly modest (see John Hawks). Indeed they weigh less than most Americans, though their fat-free body size was probably greater (and that’s what counts when it comes to predicting brain size).
The chart shows brain size increasing from the Early Pleistocene (890 g) to the Early Upper Paleolithic (1460 g) and then decreasing all the way down to 1302 g in so-called “living people”.
The problem is the sample for “living” people does not have a date and my guess is these “living” people have been dead for over 80 years, since their brain weights were estimated from cranial capacity and the “living” skulls are likely from museums. The authors probably just assumed they were recent enough to approximate living people, but given Richard Lynn’s claim that 20th century nutrition & disease reduction has boosted brain size, we need especially recent data.
How would truly living people, especially living young people in the First World compare with the numbers on this chart? More recent data comes from Ho et al (1980).
Of course people from the United States are not comparable to the Worldwide ancient skulls, however Ruff et al note that about three quarters of their data is from Europe/West Asia and about a quarter is from Africa. If we use the Ho et al age 25 sex combined means (1455 g for whites and 1333 g for blacks), and do a weighted average where whites are 75% and blacks are 25%, we get 0.75(1455) + 0.25(1333) = 1091.25 = 1425 g.
In other words, people with ancestry from the similar regions of the world as most ancient skulls, seem to have an average brain weight of 1425 g when reared in the First World. Not far from the peak brain weight of 1460 g in the upper paleolithic. Add to that the fact that people in autopsy studies likely have smaller brains and the likely brain growth that’s occurred since the 1980s, and it seems our brains have arguably made a full recovery, as we’ve finally achieved the great nutrition standards humans enjoyed in the early upper paleolithic!
Indeed nutrition was so good in the Upper Paleolithic, that the elite were morbidly obese, reminding us that wealth inequality has always been with us.
The Social Justice Warrior...Returns! said:
Diet for the elites who survived was great. You can’t say the diet was great for sure.
The Social Justice Warrior...Returns! said:
By your reasoning cavemen had bigger brains and were therefore smarter than modern humans. Correct?
no because with agriculture came huge populations and thus rare mutations, some of which may have increased brain efficiency, compensating for brain shrinkage. and on top of that, we’ve finally recovered our nutrition and the brain size that comes with it
No open thread so am posting here.
I’m so surprised I’ve never seen this book discussed by HBDers/white nationalists. Seems like it’s right up their alley. This book is hilarious: Genes, Polymorphisms and the Making of Societies: How Genetic Behavioral Traits Influence Human Cultures.
The main idea of this book is that the presence of different genes in the correspondingpeople has actually dictated the acquisition of these distinct cultural and historical lines, and that an alternative outcome might have been unlikely.
The central notion of this book is based on a very simple idea—so simple that it can be considered as self-evident. If the genetic content (status, variability, signature) of individuals, affects—if not dictates—behavior, then shouldn’t this content also affect collective decisions and actions, if examined at the level of groups of people that share certain genetic characteristics? Shouldn’t people that are genetically similar among each other exhibit similar trends in their decisions that have affected their culture and history? Such groups of people, with a genetically distinct identity, can be considered as entire nations or even what we call races and ethnic groups. No matter how stringent the definition of homogeneity is, especially genetic homogeneity, it is really arbitrary and quantitative. In any case, though, it involves groups of people that genetically are more uniform than people that may belong to other “groups” of people. Therefore, it is conceivable that history, at least the part of it that reflects the outcome of certain decisions and reactions of human individuals, is also affected by the genetic identity of the people involved. In other words, different people would have made different choices that, in turn, would have created a different outcome to their history.
For example, novelty-seeking is a behavioral trait related to the tendency for increasedrisk-taking and exploratory excitability. This trait, historically, might have produceda positive influence in individuals, since it might have facilitated progress andadvancement. It is noteworthy to mention that it has also been related, geneticallyand behaviorally, with increased incidences of drug addiction. Does this remind youof Western people (or people of European descent) and their civilizations? How aboutthe observation that the specific polymorphism that is related to this trait is quiteuncommon in Asians?
Short book (the above quotes are from the beginning of the book). Bold claims (that differences in genes/polymorphisms cause differences in behavior which then lead to differences in society/philosophy between the East and West). Should be done with it tonight. Expect article.
King meLo said:
“Indeed nutrition was so good in the Upper Paleolithic, that the elite were morbidly obese”
That’s complete fucking bullshit. You should feel like garbage for blatantly lying.