Imagine you have two 14 year-old 9th graders One is a nerd, and one is a jock. Both score at the 9th grade level in math.
Then at age 17, in their final year of high school, both are tested again. Once again, both score at the 9th grade level in math.
Now imagine the jock dies, while the nerd survives long enough to finish his final year of high school.
In that final year of high school, the nerd is tested a third time and now scores at the PhD level in math!
The math teacher says “clearly the nerd is genetically smarter. He went from 9th grade to PhD level in just one year, while the jock stayed stuck at 9th grade level for 3 years.”
This is very similar to the logic used to argue that modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals. Steve Hsu writes “What Homo Sapiens accomplished in 50-100k years far outstrips Neanderthal accomplishments over a much longer period of time.”
However modern humans accomplished all this after Neanderthals went extinct, just as the nerd in my anecdote accomplished all his math progress after the jock died. And modern humans were roughly culturally equal to Neanderthals when Neanderthals were alive, just as the nerd and jock were mathematical equals when the jock was alive.
Modern humans and Neanderthals diverged from a common ancestor at the same time, just as the nerd and the jock were born at the same time.
So why then is somehow assumed that modern humans and the nerd accomplished their achievements so much faster than Neanderthals and the jock did?
Perhaps because it’s assumed that modern humans and the nerd did not hit their biological peak until around the time Neanderthals and the jock died respectively. So some think that modern humans were not truly modern humans until 50 kya, while Neanderthals are presumed to have been truly Neanderthals for several hundred thousand years. So even though both species diverged at the same time, when it comes to measuring accomplishments, we start the clock when each species became its true self.
One could make the same argument for the nerd and the jock. Even though both are the same age, the jock likely became a man (hit puberty) around 14, while the nerd did not become a man until 17. And so even though both guys were stuck at 9th grade math from age 14 to 17, the jock had three years of a mature brain to progress, yet stagnated, while the nerd progressed 12 years within a single year of puberty.
Pumpkin join my guild and our quest for further reproductive success.
also Pumpkin do you get ad money only if we click on the banners on the blog?
no they pay per how many people see them and how often they see them, especially the type of people desired by advertisers. And just because you see ads on a blog does not mean the blogger is the one making money.
are you earning money from the ads?
I earn money off the ads from this blog, but not from the ads on my other blog:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/
Jock masturbated too much too soon?
I was thinking more of a sports related death.
‘And modern humans were roughly culturally equal to Neanderthals when Neanderthals were alive, just as the nerd and jock were mathematical equals when the jock was alive.”
I think I know why there are less comments or arguments in general. Because you only argue the same talking points that have been debunked numerous times before.
Neanderthals have been shown to engage in many of the same techno-logic and sociological practices that isolated hunter gatherer groups do. However, there is a large discrepancy. The peak of Neandertal technology is the chatelperronian, which is clearly inferior to Cro-magnon’s aurignacian.
Have you heard of the cumulative cultural hypothesis? Trust me, it’s not as liberal as it sounds. More or less, it utilizes several proxies to create a mathematical model that show-cases the relationship between ecological and sociological influences on encephalization. Neandertals may have been subjected more to the former. I highly suggest at least giving the article a peek. It does a great job of providing a synergistic merging of two rival hypotheses. Natural histories that comprise the former simply take too long to be adaptive, while the latter confines brain evolution into stasis.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006504
“However modern humans accomplished all this after Neanderthals went extinct, ”
Homo sapiens diverged from neandertals at a million years at the latest, the former were technologically equal until almost 200,000 years ago. Even in the exact same environment Cro magnon dominated.
Get over it.
Refine your theories.
Or attempt a refutation.
Neanderthals have been shown to engage in many of the same techno-logic and sociological practices that isolated hunter gatherer groups do. However, there is a large discrepancy. The peak of Neandertal technology is the chatelperronian, which is clearly inferior to Cro-magnon’s aurignacian.
But the aurignacian is only 40 kya. It didn’t appear until around the time Neanderthals went extinct.
If you want to argue middle stone age modern humans were smarter than their Neanderthal contemporaries, a better example would be the bow and arrow, but then Neanderthals had comparable achievements much earlier such as making the first glue.
Neandertal extinction was mainly caused by competition with homo sapiens.
The chatelperronian technology was a response to aurignacian. The latter is what allowed Cro magnon to succeed
If you’re gong to try and compare the species, it makes no sense to give an arbitrary cut off where their achievements “count”. We already won by simply being the last Hominins alive.
If you’re gong to try and compare the species, it makes no sense to give an arbitrary cut off where their achievements “count”. We already won by simply being the last Hominins alive.
The point of my article was to explore the claim that modern human culture progressed more rapidly than neanderthal culture. So it’s not just how much they accomplished, but when they did so, because conceivably, neanderthals would have eventually achieved everything we did if given enough time.
I highly doubt it, they didn’t actually do too much until we showed up. They had to at that point, but it wasn’t enough to stop their extinction. Humans clearly had larger genetic peaks.
Neither species did much for 300,000 years. Civilization’s only a few thousand years old. The industrial revolution is only a few hundred.
I personally doubt neanderhals would have done those things had they outlived us but it’s plausible.
Both arguably had highly complex cultures from at least 100,000- 200,000 years. Homo sapiens was just more sophisticated. The upper Paleolithic revolution was just a time of increased technological invention.
Puppy how come you didn’t mention that the neanderthals suffered from poverty and many grew up in single parent homes? Or are you just trying to crowbar in your humanist agenda.
Familytreedna tells me for a fee of 5$ my ancient DNA.
35% hunter gatherer
52% farmer
13% Metal age invader
And after reading Reich book, it means something now for me.
Is hunter gather Cro-Magnon?
I read somewhere that we inherited the genes for depression from Neanderthals. That might have had something to do with their demise. Also I formulated another hypothesis. It may seem simplistic but it looks like humans are fairly obsessed with beauty. Now I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or is it? Links have been made to the golden ratio, symmetry and proportionality as the qualities that render someone more strikingly beautiful to us. In fact we seem to be obsessed with the idea of symmetry, even among intellectuals and with regard to women beauty is associated with higher fertility and good health.
Is beauty entirely cosmetic? Maybe it is or it may well have on some level and on average a link to survivability. It may tap into both brains and brawn on some level. Narrower more feminine faces in men tilt towards the perception of greater intelligence. Is this perception valid? It might be on some level, due to smaller more slender body types having to rely more heavily on brains to get by. On the flip side brawny manly looking men look like they could defend themselves and their family better but then too brawny, might I say neanderthal-like might be too much of a compromise in terms of beauty. I guess it’s about the right balance between the two on a mass population level.
So to get to my point, could it be that the Neanderthals died out because they were too ugly and too depressed in comparison to modern humans? Of course evidence points towards humans basically edging them out of europe and into extinction but simply based on brain size they may well have had the cognitive tools to survive on par with humans(maybe better) but were simply unable to compete with their better looking cousins in terms of procreation. My other hypothesis is that humans might carry genes for ruthlessness disagreeableness and greater sociability(ie less genes on the spectrum) that might have been missing in Neanderthals therefore giving us the edge in the long run.
So were I’m from. Very intelligent individuals do not usually come from very intelligent families. Is this normal?
Nvm they. Do bbecause they are mixed with white and simply don’t know there white family.
PP,
Regarding the continental african test scores, heres the best i could find for now:
Click to access math-scores-fourteen-african-countries0.pdf
interesting. too bad they express international comparisons in hard to read chart form instead of just listing precise numbers.
I recomend you read 4:1, 4:2, 5 and 7, theres a lot of caveats. I dont think you need to read the graphs as 100 points pretto much are 1 SD. Botswana dis store. 400 and South Africa 364 on the TIMSS, so thats actually interessting.
100 points is 1 SD in what population?
Remember that when international IQs are reported, they’re talking about the mean and SD in only Northwest Europeans living in the developed world.
Other research has found that Canada has an IQ distribution almost identical to the U.S. white population’s, so eyeball figure 2 and equate Canada’s 5th percentile with an IQ of 75 and Canada’s 95th percentile with an IQ of 125. From these two data points all other scores can be estimated via linear extrapolation.
It states that all the sub-Saharan countries are below 400 on figure 2 with some being below 250, but we can’t equate this to the IQ scale until we know Canada’s distribution.
“100 points is 1 SD in what population”
I think the population is all OECD nations (becuase the PISA has it that way), but maybe not. Lebanon scores around I dont think 75 iq children go to normal schools. So the education distribution might be very truncated if you transcribe every score to iq.
It’s a culturally biased “IQ” test so people in poor cultures will score lower than they would have on a culture reduced IQ test (and I don’t mean Ravens).
These kids go to school though. They are not nationally representative but genotipically representative.
If that’s what you believe, then tell me what the 5th and 95th percentile for Canada is on figure 2. I estimated it myself but it’s more scientific if we both try to estimate independently and get similar results.
I would guess 20 IQ points. So lynns estimates seem somewhat sane for southern/eastern africa.
In the pisa (page 47) the difference between Canada and Lebanon is 142, which is around 20 IQ points.
Maybe lebanon has an higher IQ,
Afro seems to think that (an iq of 90 for kids) (Ctrl-f-lebanon): https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/
But the Pisa data contests him.
Neanderthal IQs were in the 80s, which is below average, however, some of them would have average IQs. Maybe the ones with the higher IQs passed on their genes, and nowadays, the 115s would be the Neanderthal 100s?
PP,
In my local newspaper today there is an article about magnus carlsen. His IQ is estimated at 160. Can you do an estimate?
I will at some point, but there are so many other topics I’m focused on right now. If you want it done fast you have to pay me $5 U.S.. 🙂
Do you know what happened to Robert Lindsay?