A former commenter tried to post a comment saying my blog was worth only $4 a month. Well that’s strange, I thought, so I took a look at the source and I was STUNNED!
It actually says this blog is worth $4 THOUSAND a month! And since blogs are probably valued at ten times monthly profits (though these are hypothetical profits), it suggests my blog is worth $40 THOUSAND!
To put that in perspective, I decided to compare my blog to the Lion of the Blogosphere which I like quite a bit. His blog could earn $305 a month, suggesting a value of just over $3 K.
You know you’re brilliant when you’re more than ten times richer than an Ivy League New York Jew!
Of course I’m being facetious. I have no idea how accurate this web site is, and other sources I’ve looked at in the past indicate the Lion’s readership is twice that of mine. And of course the Lion is partly responsible for my success, since he generously promoted me on his blog and put me on his blog roll.
And of course, both of us are way behind Unz.com, who enjoy such luminaries as Steve Sailer (the man who paved the way for us ALL) and of course the fabulous Anatoly Karlin.
One indication that these numbers might be somewhat accurate is that the Huffington Post’s earning are $31 million, suggesting they’re worth $310 million, and indeed that blog was sold for $315 million.
Of course the Huffington Post’s content is more advertiser friendly than my blog is, but the rise of Trump suggests the culture is starting to rebel against political correctness, and smart advertisers might adapt.
For years I’ve allowed almost all of you to comment freely with very little moderation. That caused you to get into long drawn out arguments, forcing some of you to visit the blog every 5 minutes to write rebuttals. That was great for the value of this blog because the number of hits would skyrocket with all your repeat visits all day long, but it’s not so good for you, because you’re wasting your lives getting addicted to the internet when you could be doing far more productive things with your time.
I don’t want my blog (which is technically an increasingly valuable brand) to profit at your expense, so I’m going to move to a system where comments are moderated, and only get released from moderation a few times a day at the most.
At first you will hate this because you’re used to immediate chat room speed, but in the long run, you’ll be much happier, because you wont stay up all night quibbling with people, nor will you feel the compulsion to check the blog obsessively.
As the speed of commenting goes down, I suspect, so will the number of comments, but we’ll have more time to REFLECT on each other’s comments, and truly understand each other’s point of view, which will reduce endless pointless debates and perhaps improve the quality of discourse, not to mention, the quality of our lives.
This should be Trump’s theme song since he claims to be the populist candidate, standing up for the working class, and using Tracy Chapman would help him with the black vote to boot:
God I love Tracy Chapman. I’ve always loved her. Black people make the best rhythm music. This has been known since the Arab slave trade and remains obvious today. Even scholar J.P. Rushton made this point in his book, saying African American rhythm music has conquered adolescent populations from Toronto to Tokyo.
Even though there was enormous racism against blacks among what Rushton considered, the more highly advanced populations of Northeast Asia, they had no choice but to worship black music icons because the rhythm was so good. I suggested to Rushton that black rhythm music might be an evolved adaption for getting mates, consistent with his theory that blacks were the most sexual race.
Hate to brag but he loved my idea, calling it very clever, and wishing he had put in his book. High praise indeed from the Darwin of the 20th century.
I feel the U.S. is headed for the kind of revolution Chapman sings about, or some kind of major political realignment. When even far left (by U.S. standards) Michael Moore is praising Donald Trump:
Of course Moore has always been politically unpredictable, famously begging Oprah to run for President in 2004 because she was one of the only major U.S. media figures to jump off the pro-Iraq war bandwagon before the war began and then later letting Moore protest the war on her show 48 hours before it officially started.
Other evidence of a political realignment includes left-wing Cenk Uygur interviewing right-wing Dick Morris, and being stunned about how much they agree on. The interview is well worth watching. Morris’s incredible intelligence just shines right through.
Morris lost a lot of credibility as a political expert when he was spectacularly wrong about who would win the 2008 presidential election causing Fox news to fire him. But I believe he was not really trying to predict the election, so much as he was trying to influence it. He knew darn well, in my opinion, that Romney was unlikely to win in a land slide, but he predicted it anyway, hoping it would generate enthusiasm and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Morris also seems disingenuous when he tells Cenk that he screwed up by opposing the Iraq war. I don’t think so. I think he got exactly what he wanted out of that war, or at least his genes did. Cenk is also disingenuous when he acts like he opposed the Iraq war out of loyalty to America. Yes, both of these men are loyal to America, but they’re also subconsciously both worried about their respective ethnic genetic interests in the Arab-Jewish middle eastern conflict. Why can’t people be honest?
To quote the FABULOUS Tracy Chapman:
Some say the devil be a mystical thing
I say the devil, he a walking man
He a fool, he a liar, a conman and a thief
Try to tell you what you want, try to tell you what you need
As a person with hopefully some understanding of ethnic genetic interests, I feel a moral responsibility, especially during these politically volatile times, to encourage a more socially responsible discussion about controversial topics.
As a result some of the older posts and comments are coming under review, and being placed in moderation.
Thank you for your understanding, and together let’s try to raise the quality and civility of our public discourse.
[Update pumpkin person, Nov 6, 2016: Commenters exposed a mistake in this article, which I indicated as corrected via a crossed line through the original error]
When the prudish Victorians first discovered the Bushmen, they were disgusted by the obscene levels of nudity, enormous genitalia, elongated labia, and colossal secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and buttocks. For this, the Bushmen were punished, humiliated and exploited. One Bushwoman nicknamed the Hottentot Venus was paraded in front of circus goers and laughed at.
Victorians already looked down on blacks for living in a land full of apes and for being the color of darkness, but when you added what was seen as such depraved over-the-top sexuality to the mix, many felt the entire Negroid race needed to be punished, and slavery racism became especially viscous.
Today many African Americans are disgusted by how their bushwoman sister was treated, but some, like hip-hop community, continue to degrade black female sexuality for the entertainment of white suburban teenaged boys. Indeed sexual icon Beyoncé can so relate to the hotentot Venus that she wants to play her in a movie.
Morphologically, the bushmen were considered an extreme form of Negroid, and Cavalli-Sforza also lumped them into the Negroid race based on lineage. Yet new lineage research suggests the incipient Negroid race may have split into two at a far earlier date than Cavalli-Sforza may have thought. According to the West Hunter blog:
The Bushmen (and probably African Pygmies as well) apparently split off earlier than any other human population, something like 200,000 years ago. Some Bushmen among the Ju’/hoansi, show low or even zero admixture with other groups. How they managed to have so little gene flow with other Africans for such a long time is a mystery to me, but that’s what the stats say…
This long separation doesn’t necessarily mean that Bushmen ave the most divergent phenotypes (although thinking about it, they probably are, what with steatopygia , the tablier egyptienne, etc) – strength and direction of selection are important, not just time. But all else equal, more time allows greater changes.
This doesn’t mean that the Bushmen are what early homo sap was like – they’ve been evolving too – but we ought to be able to learn quite a bit about changes over the past couple of hundred thousand years by investigating genetic differences between the Bushmen and everybody else. For example, 200 k years ago, our ancestors didn’t have what it takes to out-compete Neanderthals and other archaics on their home grounds, judging by the fact that they didn’t manage it back then. By 40k years ago we could and did – but that isn’t necessarily the case for Bushmen, a separate branch. Although, since Bushmen and Pygmies seem to have picked up a few percent of their genome from some very divergent group of archaic humans, perhaps they too developed the ability to kick archaic ass. But we don’t know if they did it in the same way, and it probably happened in fairly familiar African environments, instead of ice age Eurasia.
So what are their IQs?
In his 2006 book Race Differences in Intelligence, scholar Richard Lynn shocked the World by claiming Bushmen had an average IQ of only 54. To put that in perspective, the average white has an IQ of 100. IQs below 70 are considered EMR (Educable (mild) Mental Retardation) and IQs below about 55 are considered TMR (Trainable (moderate) Mental Retardation). So to describe the IQ of an entire sub-race of people as TMR was shocking indeed.
Lynn based the figure partly on the fact that a group of bushmen allegedly scored about 13 points lower than mainstream black Africans on a culture reduced IQ test. Since the mainstream blacks were mostly illiterate, Lynn felt it fair to compare them to the Bushmen. Since mainstream blacks are known to average IQ 67 (once they become used to paper and pencil tests), it thus seemed reasonable to deduce that the Bushmen would score 54 if they too became used to paper and pencil tests (13 points lower).
However based on the IQs of African Americans reared in upper class white homes, I estimate that mainstream blacks (sometimes called Congoids) have a genetic IQ of 85, suggesting the divergent blacks like Bushmen (sometimes called Capoids) have a genetic IQ of 72.
The IQ of South Africa’s Coloureds
Using a novel approach, I decided that one could recover the genetic IQ of the Bushmen from examining the IQs of South Africa’s Coloreds. This can be done because the Coloured are 25% white, 25% Indian, 25% Congoid, and 25% Capoid. The Coloureds have an average IQ of 83, only 3 points lower than the 86 average IQ of South Africa’s Indians.
Since dark caucasoids have a genetic IQ of around 90, and since largely the dumbest Indians probably became indentured labourers in South Africa, it can be assumed that South African Indians have reached their genetic IQ. And since, like the Coloureds, the whites would give them good environments so that they would side with them against the native blacks, the Coloureds have probably also reached their genetic potential with an IQ of 83. The whites in South Africa score 94, somewhat lower than the Northwestern European mean of 100, perhaps because largely the most racist whites colonized and stayed in South Africa.
Only the black South Africans (IQ 65) are way below their genetic potential, but as mentioned above, the mean genetic IQ of Congoids is likely 85. So assuming the genetic IQ of Coloureds is 83, and further assuming that IQ reflects an averaging of 86 (indentured Indian genetic IQ), 94 (apartheid white genetic IQ) and 85 (Congoid genetic IQ), simple algebra tells us the Bushmen have a genetic IQ of roughly 70 (consistent with Lynn’s claim that they are about 1 SD below the mean of mainstream black Africans).
Behavioral Modernity
In a recent post I blogged about Richard Klein and Spencer Wells’s theory, that sometime around 70,000 years ago, there was a sudden genetic change in Africa that produced behavioral modernity and allowed humans to spread all over the globe, replacing their archaic cousins like the Neanderthals with epic speed. Several readers expressed skepticism about such a sudden change in behavior, but if experts as respected as Klein and Spencer believe it, there’s probably some truth to it, even if the theory has been exaggerated.
I now believe the huge 10-15 point IQ gap between Bushmen/pygmies and other “blacks” (i.e. congoids and australoids) perfectly preserves this sudden jump like a living fossil record. Prior to about 70,000 years ago, all modern humans probably had a genetic IQ similar to Bushmen (about 70) and then around 70,000 years, something snapped, and the genetic IQ was raised to 80 (australoid level) producing behavioral modernity.
Those behaviorally modern humans who stayed Africa, evolved a bit more to IQ 85, but those who faced the tough struggle of the ice age, evolved well into the triple digits in some cases.
Meanwhile the Bushmen and pygmies achieved only anatomical modernity. Behavioral modernity never came, partly explaining why the never acquired agriculture liked the Congoids, let alone developed it like the Australoids.
Much has been made about the 15 point IQ gap between American blacks and whites, but much less is known about the far greater 70 point IQ gap between the most prosperous 0.00001% of Americans (currently self-made decabillionaires) and poorest 0.09% of Americans (currently the homeless). The 70 point IQ gap was first discovered by Pumpkin Person in February 2016, citing studies showing the average homeless American has an IQ of about 80 (U.S. white norms) and the average American self-made decabillionaire has an IQ perhaps as high as 150.
According to the American Psychological Association, the heritability of IQ is 0.75 by the late teens. The square root of the heritability implies an astonishing 0.86 correlation between IQ geneotype and IQ phenotype. Note, this correlation is for adopted people, used in heritability studies to separate the effects of genes from environment. The genotype-phenotype correlation among ALL Americans might be even higher than 0.86 because among the non-adopted, good genotypes tend to be raised in good homes.
Assuming a 0.86 correlation between genetic IQ and phenotypic IQ, the 70 point IQ gap between the richest and the poorest implies a 0.86(70) = 60 point gap in genetic IQ between these two financial extremes. The idea that there could be a 4 standard deviation (SD) gap in genetic ability between the richest and poorest Americans is devastating news to female social science PhDs who subscribe to the notion that we are all a product of society, not our inherent individual merits.
But commenter “Mugabe” has argued that IQ heritability estimates are misleadingly high because even the best studies (those of identical twins raised apart) seldom, if ever, compare people born and raised in different countries, so we don’t know if the genetic effects are environment independent, or if both were reared in a different country or different generation, the homeless genotype might have had a higher IQ (or more money) than the self-made decabillionaire genotype. This is known as the “reaction norm” argument.
However at least a big chunk of the 70 point IQ gap is caused by independent genetic effects. For example, the 0.33 correlation between IQ and brain size implies the average self-made deca-billionaire has a brain 1.54 SD bigger than the average homeless brain, and even “Mugabe” agrees that physical genotypes are much less sensitive to reaction norms than psychological ones, and scholar Arthur Jensen notes that the preponderance of evidence reveals g (general intelligence) to be an ENTIRELY physiological trait, not amenable to psychological manipulation.
The difference between the average homeless person and the average self-made decabillionaire start early in life. According to Wikipedia, a typical self-made deca-billionaire like Sergey Brin Brin was born in Moscow in the Soviet Union, to Russian Jewish parents, Yevgenia and Mikhail Brin, both graduates of Moscow State University (MSU).[9][10] His father is a mathematics professor at the University of Maryland, and his mother a researcher at NASA‘s Goddard Space Flight Center.[1][11][12].
In honor of Halloween, I will use Michael Myer’s from Rob Zombies Halloween series as the example of a typical homeless (Myers was hard-core homeless in Zombie’s Halloween II). He was born to a stripper mother and a dead father, and raised in a white trash middle American home.
According to Wikipedia, “Brin attended elementary school at Paint Branch Montessori School in Adelphi, Maryland, but he received further education at home; his father, a professor in the department of mathematics at the University of Maryland, encouraged him to learn mathematics and his family helped him retain his Russian-language skills”.
By contrast, young Michael Myers spent his childhood upstairs in his bedroom, wearing a clown mask and killing his pet rat, while his stripper mother and her white trash boyfriend, argued violently downstairs.
So even by the age of ten, you could tell that Brin and Myers were destined to have very different lives.
By contrast, Myers’s education ended in the fifth grade, when he was confined to a mental hospital for brutally murdering his classmate, his slutty sister, her boyfriend, and his mom’s drunken boyfriend. While Brin was getting his advanced degrees, Myers was rotting in a cell, not speaking, just making primitive paper mache Halloween masks over and over and over again.
By his 30s Brin was a self-made billionaire.
Self-made decabillionaire Sergey Brin of Google
By Myers’s 30s, he had escaped from a mental hospital, went on a massive killing spree, and after falsely being declared dead, spent the rest of his life roaming the fields of Haddonfield, Illinois as a homeless man, eating dogs to stay alive.
The homeless Michael Myers from Rob Zombie’s Halloween II
While Brin advances even his ethnic genetic interests by generously donating to the Hebrew national Immigrant Aid Society, Myers destroyed his immediate genetic interests, by killing his older sister, and getting himself and younger sister shot by the police.
In honor of Halloween, I wanted to blog about one of the best horror films ever made: Beloved (1998), a labor of love that brought together three of the greatest black female minds of three generations: Toni Morrison, Oprah Winfrey, and Thandie Newton.
It all started in the 1980s when the World’s biggest brained black, and biggest brained woman, Oprah Winfrey relaxed one afternoon by reading Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved, a book so narratively complex it’s been deemed too difficult for university undergrads and is typically only read at the PhD level.
And yet the richest African American of all time, finished it in a single sitting, and understood it on such a deep level that she started weeping and immediately decided to phone Morrison. Her large brain size not only gave her the cognitive brain mass to understand it, but the emotional brain mass to FEEL it on a deep level.
She felt compelled to reach out to the author but Oprah didn’t know her and her number wasn’t in the phone book. But the big brained star adapted by phoning the fire department in Morrison’s town and they gave Oprah Morrison’s home phone number.
When Morrison answered the phone, a sobbing Oprah was speechless:
“What is this? What is THIS Beloved? What is this?,” she stammered.
When Oprah finally composed herself, she said “do people tell you they have to go over the words over and over?”
“That my Dear, is called reading,” replied the haughty Morrison.
“I must make this a movie,” explained Oprah.
“How are you going to turn this into a movie,” laughed Morrison.
“I don’t know, I’ll find away. You could help”
“No, I don’t do screenplay. That’s not what I do.”
When it came time to buy the movie rights for the book, Oprah told her agent to give Morrison however much money she wanted.
NO NEGOTIATIONS!
“That’s not how it works,” explained the agent.
“That’s how this will work,” explained Oprah. Despite emerging as the World’s ONLY black billionaire in 2004 (excluding a Blarab hybrid in Saudi Arabia and a Canadian Blasian hybrid), Oprah has never considered herself a business woman and to Oprah, purchasing the rights to a book as profound as Beloved was a spiritual transaction, not a business one.
Once Oprah had the rights to Beloved, finding a director who would bring it to the screen proved incredibly difficult. One of the first people she reached out to was Jodi Foster who had famously written her Yale thesis on Beloved, but Foster was uninterested, claiming Beloved was far too literary a novel to ever be a movie.
When Oprah finally did find a director willing to make it, he wanted Oprah to audition for the lead role.
“You’re going to decide whether I get to be in my own move,” laughed Oprah. “Okay, bye-bye”
After ten long years of searching, director Jonathan Demme (famous for Silence of the Lambs) agreed to take on the project and Oprah used her status as the World’s most influential woman to get a major studio to invest $80 million into such a non-commercial art-film (a colossal amount of money, especially in the 1990s).
Inspired by a true story, the film stared Oprah as Sethe, an escaped slave who decides to slit the throat of her own baby rather than allow it to grow up in slavery. Many years later, the dead baby named Beloved, comes back from the dead (physically now an adult, but mentally still a baby) to live with Sethe.
The role of Beloved is brilliantly played by Thandie Newton, who like Oprah and Toni Morrison, is one of the most intelligent black women of her generation. Born to an African mother and White British father, Newton aced her A level exams and attended Cambridge university. She was initially skeptical that Oprah, who had little acting experience, could handle a character as complex as Sethe.
“I was stunned,” gushed Newton when she finally met Oprah. “She’s a very strong technical actress and it’s because she’s so smart. She’s acute. She’s got a mind like a razor blade.”
I loved this film’s slow pace, and cozy haunting atmosphere. I loved the fact that it was set in the 19th century, when people travelled by horse or by canoe on placid lakes colored by the reflection of the changing autumn leaves. I dream of such a simple beautiful life:
And I loved the simple mindedness of the characters, which really rang true given what the Flynn effect tells us about 19th century IQ scores, especially 19th century black IQ scores.
And yet when the film was released, it’s complex non-linear narrative structure and abstract themes proved too difficult for critics and movie goers. The film was considered a box-office flop, losing out to low-brow trash like The Bride of Chucky. And because everything Oprah touches is supposed turn to gold, the film’s failure was especially stinging.
“I was beyond hurt,” Oprah recalled. “I was STUNNED and hurt. And allowed it to devastate me for a long time. I was DEVESTATED by the reaction.”
Despite the film’s poor profits and mixed reviews, it remains one of the most beautiful and original horror films ever made.
According to scholar Richard G. Klein (see video below), by about 50,000 years ago, a major change had occurred in human behavior (described as behavioral modernity, the great leap forward, or the mind’s big bang). Suddenly, the number of artifacts humans could make had exploded, suggesting an increase in behavioral plasticity.
According to Klein, before 50,000 years ago, virtually everyone thought you could only make artifacts out of stone. After 50,000 years ago, they suddenly realized you could use bone, ivory, antler or shell.
Before 50,000 years ago, people didn’t spatially organize their living areas. In other words, they would cook, clean, eat, etc, everywhere in their living space. After 50,000 years ago, people suddenly realized they could divide their space into a cooking area, and eating area, a cleaning area, etc.
Before 50,000 years ago, humans buried their dead only to dispose of the corpse. After 50,000 years ago, burials suddenly became ritualistic and ceremonial.
Before 50,000 years ago, humans didn’t produce art. After 50,000 years ago, art becomes common.
Before 50,000 years ago, humans didn’t fish and their hunting techniques were less efficient. After 50,000 years ago fishing becomes common and hunting becomes efficient.
How do we explain this? It’s not as if we suddenly evolved into a new species 50,000 years ago. Indeed in another youtube video, Klein tells some university students that if a human from a 100,000 years ago walked into the university lecture hall, you wouldn’t notice anything different about them. The only you thing he said might notice is that person’s really well built.
However Klein believes that sometime around 50,000 years ago, a genetic mutation occurred that suddenly made humans so much smarter allowing them to rapidly spread out of Africa and replace all the other living “humans” so completely.
Klein is not the only one who believes something like this. Geneticist Spencer Wells says in his TED talk (see the 14 minute mark of video below), that from 1 million years ago, to about 65,000 years (a similar date to Klein’s 50,000 BP, though some scientists put the date as early as 80,000 years ago), there’s a long period of cultural stasis where stone tools and other artifacts shows virtually no improvement. Then suddenly after 65,000 years ago, the archeological record shows radical improvement. Wells believes this was because fully complex language began to appear around that time.
In a previous post, I noted that the kind of stone tool Homo Erectus made indicated an IQ of 55, and yet according to Wells, the quality of said tools did not improve until after 65,000 years ago. Does that imply that big brained anatomically modern humans still had an IQ of 55? Why did brain size increase so dramatically if it wasn’t adding anything to our intelligence and if it was adding something to our intelligence, why weren’t our tools improving?
It’s almost as if brain size was increasing in anticipation of that sudden mutation that would suddenly allow us to use it, like a sudden flash of lightening. Of course evolution can’t anticipate, unless you believe in intelligent design. As one documentary put it, it was like humans were suddenly touched by the hand of God. As an atheist I reject all that.
The question remains: what was the average IQ of anatomically modern humans (AMH) who were not yet behaviorally modern? I have previously estimated that the average IQ of Homo Erectus to be 55 and that the most primitive contemporary human races (i.e. bushmen, pygmies, australoids) have a genetic IQ of 70. If we assume the early AMH people were half way between Erectus and Bushmen, that would imply an IQ of 63, and that this behavioral modernity mutation added 7 points.
But 7 points doesn’t sound like enough to produce this huge cultural leap scientists describe. So either Homo Erectus has a much lower IQ than I think or bushmen have a much higher IQ than I’ve given them credit for, or early AMH was much closer to Erectus than Bushmen, despite their modern brain size.
Of course there’s also the possibility that behavioral modernity was caused by a mutation unrelated to intelligence (perhaps the position of the larynx in the throat changed improving speaking efficiency) or perhaps it was not a genetic change at all, but a breakthrough in cultural evolution. In other words, we may have had fully human intelligence since 200,000 years ago when AMH first appeared, but it took until 65,000 years ago for culture to evolve to the point of symbolic behavior. But 135,000 years is a long time for an ability to remain dormant.
Imagine if we took a bunch of modern normal babies from any human race and had the raised from birth in the jungle by chimps with no access to human language or culture. Assuming some of them survived long enough to reproduce in the jungle, how long would it take for their descendants to show behavioral modernity? I can’t imagine it taking 135,000 years.
Cro-Magnon man dominated Europe from about 45,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Although they are sometimes considered the first Whites, the white gene pool is more complex given the spread of agriculture from the Middle east and actual white skin is thought not to have appeared until 7000 years ago, so Cro-Magnon’s probably looked liked this.
Brain Size suggests an IQ of 92 to 99
Commenter Milo wanted me to estimate their IQ from their brain size and using my line of best fit, which predicts mean genetic IQ (y) from mean genetic brain size (x) in 13 modern races, I can possibly do so.
About 15,000 years ago their cranial capacity was 1450 cc, suggesting an IQ of 92, but by 10,000 years ago, the incredible cognitive demands of surviving ice age Europe had raised their brain sizes to 1518 cc, suggesting an IQ of 99.
Draw-A-Man IQ test suggests an IQ of 75
To validate these IQ estimates, I decided to look at their cave art, with an emphasis on drawings of people, so I could apply Dale Harris’s revision of the beloved Goodenough Draw-A-Man IQ test. The first drawing of a man I found was discovered in South-western France and believed to be 17,000 years old. It’s known as “The Wounded Man”.
The Goodenough Harris Draw-A-Man test has a maximum raw score of 73, but because this drawing depicted the man with the head of a bird, not a human, 13 of the items dealing with features unique to the human head could not be scored, so it ended up with a score of 22/60 which I then prorated to 27/73.
Another mysterious cave painting found in the cavern known as ‘The Sanctuary’ at Trois-Frères, Ariège, France, made around 15,000 years ago is known as “The Sorcerer”.
Unfortunately this too is a man-animal hybrid, and the animal features made some of the items inapplicable, in this case, the six items dealing with clothing (items #29,#55,#56,#57,#58 and #59), but out of the remaining 67 items, the picture scored 49, which I prorated into a score of 53/73.
Averaging the two drawings together, Cro-Magnon man scored 40/73 on the Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Man test. The smoothed mean and standard deviation for U.S. 15-year-olds (considered adult level for the purpose of this test) is 45.2 and 9.83 respectively, so this equates to an IQ of 92 (U.S. norms) or 90 (U.S. white norms). But because these norms were published in 1963, and norms on this test became inflated at a rate of 3 IQ points per decade (Lynn, 2006) until at least 2006, we must reduce this IQ to 77 on modern white norms.
Correcting for culture bias, Draw-A-Man test suggests an IQ of 95
Because even the Draw-a-man test is culturally biased, we must do our best to adjust for the stone age environment Cro-Magnons lived in. It’s well known that on typical IQ tests, dropping out of school causes IQ scores (though perhaps not real intelligence) to drop by 2 points per missed year, and research on adopted kids shows that each extra year of education in the rearing parent raises a child’s IQ score by 1.17 points. Although such cultural biases fade by adulthood, as scholars Dickens and Flynn brilliantly noted, this is only true within generations. Between generations these environmental effects are permanent.
So considering the average Cro-Magnon had about 13 years less schooling than today’s average white, this would artificially depress his IQ by 26 points. Further, being raised by parents with 12 less years schooling than today’s average white would artificially depress his IQ by 14 points. So these two cultural biases together should artificially depress his IQ by 40 points on a typical IQ test, but because the Draw-A-Man test is only about half as culturally biased as a typical IQ test, we’ll say it’s depressed by only 20 points.
You might ask, why, if the Draw-A-Man test is only half as culturally biased as a typical IQ test, does it show the full 3 point a decade Flynn effect. The answer is because the Flynn effect is not entirely cultural, it’s also biological (nutrition) and Performance IQ tests like Draw-a-man are sensitive to nutrition (which Cro-Mangnons had plenty of).
So adding 20 IQ points to their IQ of 77, to compensate for the test’s cultural bias, raises them to IQ 97.
I realize such corrections are very simplistic, but it seems to give believable results.
Pumpkin Person 