Commenter Loaded writes:
I just had a question about what you think the IQ estimates for different civilizations would be, particularly Greek, Roman, Mayan/Aztec, Han Chinese, etc?Also, do you think Raven’s Matrices is a good indicator of spatial ability? Do you think it is easier to structure concepts using a far more complex framework if you have high spatial ability?If I have any other questions, Santa Pumpkin, I’ll be sure to ask, because your gift giving this year is giving all of us peace on Earth. Thank you!
I can’t comment on the other groups you mentioned, but my sense is that the ancient Greeks were about as intelligent as the Victorian British. As Anatoly Karlin has noted, they did not have the inbreeding problem other populations have suffered from and their height (and by inference nutrition needed for brain development) was around 5’7″ (in men) which is similar to 19th century Brits. I think the rare combination of being ahead of their contemporaries in both genomic IQ (more outbreeding) and environmental IQ (good health and nutrition) made their phenotypic IQs conspicuously high for their time.
As for the Raven; I I think it measures spatial ability but not especially well. It’s more of a conceptual test. Indeed on the WISC-V it’s not even part of the spatial sub-scale, but instead part of the fluid reasoning index (though that’s a misnomer since spatial ability itself is fluid).
Pumpkin Person 
Victorian Brits were pretty smart for their time. But Puppy always keeps saying industrialisation was worse than hunter gathering for peoples diet. I guess it makes sense if you make the claim that mainly the upper classes got better nutrition as a result of industrialisation.
Agriculture was worse for diet than hunter/gathering. Height dropped over half a foot but recovered in the 20th century
Also add in population size, population density, free time, specialised labour, new means of communication.
RR, keeps deleting his comments to me on his blog. RR talks about more interesting things, but Pumpkin formats his blog in a much more intuitive manner. Pumpkin used to get on my nerves but honestly at least he can grasp concepts that fly right over RR’s head. I’ve always known RR wasn’t the brightest crayon in the box, but it wasn’t annoying until he started spamming false information. He’s become less honest and i just miss the days we could have beneficial discussions. Meanwhile Pumpkin just remains in stasis. So much potential that’s just squandered. Can’t blame him though, he’s just doing what he thinks will make him the most popular.
😦 I’m drunk, Im sorry
Puppy spends a lot of time thinking about the most boring topics possible for this blog.
Let me explain about the “deleted comments.”
I replied to your first comment on my phone then put it down to get some work done. When I picked it up again, my phone was still in the WP app, and the time from the comment didn’t change to X hours, it only said 2 minutes. I had thought you replied to my previous comment, and I said what I said. When I realized I just re-replied what I had written previously, I deleted the comment.
The first comment I wrote to you was, for some reason, pending. So the second comment was removed but the first comment is back. Apologies. I don’t remove comments.
Thanks for the kind words.
“’ve always known RR wasn’t the brightest crayon in the box,”
Go talk to someone you think is on “your level” then and stop wasting your time?
“Go talk to someone you think is on “your level” then and stop wasting your time?”
Well first let me apologize for the drunk rants. I was incredibly plastered. me and 9 people hiked up a mountain for 5 miles and got hammered.
Second, i do think you’re duller than a good portion of the users here. However, You back your claims with sources, you have a somewhat decent understanding of the scientific method, and our area of interests are very close. All of this makes you far more interesting to debate. I like you for your knowledge, not your intelligence.
Your stupidity was never a problem to me. You don’t respond to valid criticism anymore and just repeat the same thing(what pumpkin does). Even if the criticism is invalid, you still don’t explain how. So, its more appropriate to assume you’re just wrong. If you’re busy that’s one thing, but at that point your blog is simply an echo chamber.
“Well first let me apologize for the drunk rants. I was incredibly plastered. me and 9 people hiked up a mountain for 5 miles and got hammered.”
No problem.
“Second, i do think you’re duller than a good portion of the users here. However, You back your claims with sources, you have a somewhat decent understanding of the scientific method, and our area of interests are very close. All of this makes you far more interesting to debate. I like you for your knowledge, not your intelligence.”
Thanks. If I only were smarter. Too bad I wasn’t born smart.
“Your stupidity was never a problem to me. You don’t respond to valid criticism anymore and just repeat the same thing(what pumpkin does). Even if the criticism is invalid, you still don’t explain how. So, its more appropriate to assume you’re just wrong. If you’re busy that’s one thing, but at that point your blog is simply an echo chamber.”
How stupid am I?
I’m obviously pretty busy, given my sparse posting/commenting.
As I said your stupidity is not really the issue, as most of what we talk about does not require conceptual understanding beyond what you’re capable of.
You’re stupid enough that you can’t understand certain concepts. I mean you don’t clarify anything when pressed so what is one supposed to think? You’re just so busy that you completely forget any arguments made against your opinions? If you’re so busy how do you actually have to time to philosophize with any depth? I don’t think you do.
What concepts? Can you elaborate more? Kinda vague.
I have a heavy work load and have had a heavy one for some time. I have little free time and the moment m
what is ”level”*
today everyone can ”have” knowledge via internet, google, satan, jewish conspirrationem….
you can play a scientist when you learn how to write in academic way, over-quoting yout colleagues thousand times and using difficult words..
Most of the ones we’ve been through lately. For example I’m still not sure if you actually understand the importance of the is/ought problem in reference to morality As I said it could be easier to believe you were just busy if you actually adressed questions and criticism. Instead you just continue on. Which is whatever.
“you can play a scientist when you learn how to write in academic way, over-quoting yout colleagues thousand times and using difficult words..”
He doesn’t even really use difficult words, he just uses them in a different way than most people. Hence, why all the confusion occurs with his dissenters.
He uses in strategic or ponctual way.
I’m not sure you understand that, using a factual premise and an ethical premise, we can then derive an ethical conclusion, bypassing the fallacy making it irrelevant, which is the point of the argument cited from Lee Hankinson Nelson in her article in The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics.
Santo, I never claimed to be a scientist. Though I do make predictions on people’s future performances in the gym based on my knowledge of people and the data they give me.
Veins and arteries are the same things. People use the words in the same way, it doesn’t matter if they’re different things.
See this is what I mean, you still don’t get it. It still does not circumvent the problem unless you can give justification for the ethical premise “great suffering is wrong”. It’s about more than just deriving normative conclusions from factual premises it’s failing to differentiate between prescriptions and descriptions. Again this expands to more than just morality. I may go into more detail when I have access to my computer.
So… why you talk about scientific stuff**
It’s not be scientist or not, but, try to be the best scientist you can…
I talk about what I’m interested in.
So are’you saying your point of views are not totally accurate or open to criticism* Isn’t*
Well, which populations are undergoing dysgenic and eugenic breeding? does anyone have an answer to that question?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18808363/
I suspect east asia is even more far off than what britain is. I actually used to think the west was dysgenic before. But then again even here theres an shortage of women and almost all income brackets and personality traits are starting to have less kids, meaning competition. This study is congruent with my former biases haha. But I haven’t read it in detail so whatever.
The question is… what type of personality do rich people have?
Mikey Blayze , you might like it..
Meaning competition for women being the only way to have an excess for reproductive success. Or more precisely, the people who dont stack up dont get kids.
And about it confirming my biases, perhaps not, becuase i imagined another mechanism than what they propose.
Populations or races in which the poorer have kids or more kids are undergoing dysgenic breeding. And those in which its the opposite are undergoing eugenic breeding. In countries like india poorer have more kids. Although it is falling now, they on average have more kids than rich. Its 2-3 vs 1-2
India also has a high child death rate (though rapidly declining) which while extremely sad, is perhaps eugenic because those with bad DNA are least likely to survive.
Even after taking that into consideration poorer people have more surviving kids than the rich. Also the child death rate is only slightly higher than that of the world.
I meant poorer people have more kids than the rich.
Because of selective pressures that were not there in the past, some populations with low genetic IQ could see their’s rising steadily whereas populations with selective pressures that are now very stable maybe undergoing a loss in genetic IQ. Things to keep in mind for in the next 50 to a hundred years.
SO pumpkin can i get your IQ analysis or?
Coming soon
wowza. look Pumpkin you actually cared about me then. Searched “loaded” in the tool-bar and found a bunch of interesting articles!
thanks!