IQ tests are not an accurate measure of prehistoric intelligence. But are a remnant that can be gleaned to sus out intelligence. With large enough sample sets you can begin to guess the intelligence of a group, even if the test isn’t particularly accurate at gauging prehistoric intelligence, because of the wisdom of the crowds.
Neural networks are flexible and are configured to the environment, to adapt like a neural network. In the past this was for making bows and arrows, traps, strategic planning, organizing societies and civilizations, which is not measured on IQ tests. BUT IQ tests can be used to sus out raw brain power. While someone might score 10 points higher on an IQ test than a different individual, and the lower IQ individual might actually be smarter than them IRL, when you have larger sample sets, as a group it averages out. And certainly, if someone is 50 points higher on an IQ test, there is no debate, it will be obvious they will be smarter than them IRL too.
That’s too categorical, but it’s beside the point: IQ is expensive. Even if it’s useful ceteris paribus, it brings along costs that can make it maladaptive on net.
This argument weighs in favor of my position. In terms of resource access, humans within a group (particularly in early humans where groups were small and communal) share relatively evenly. High intelligence isn’t as relevant to acquiring resources, because every member of the group shares in the spoils of high intelligence.
But in terms of access to mates, individuals still compete within the group. In my model, the kind of intelligence that sets humans apart fulfills that role. It later became useful in creating advanced technology, but that wasn’t important until after civilizations were founded, at the earliest, and that was much too recently to have had an widespread impact on innate ability.
So intelligence was pushed along by sexual selection, not resource constraints, and those pressures applied to all human groups.
This childish shit makes it hard to take you seriously. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Those with higher IQ passed on their advantageous genes because they had more offspring. They lived longer in demanding environments…and they dominated those of their own group, because they were more clever.
All benefits…only a few dominated.
Environmental challenges AND inter-group challengers. Environment determining inter-group hierarchies.
But keep spinning…eventually you might find something to support your delusions.
When speaking with children, one must lower oneself to their level.
Geniousness is stupidity that has received universal recognition. But before that recognition, all we have are persecution, intolerance, and misunderstanding. Yet, the ‘beasts’ (human biomass) are the ones that create geniuses, through their persecution.
That’s true. But neither is the unique or even predominant cause of the other.
Are you familiar with Simpson’s Paradox? A correlation can hold within all sub-populations and still not hold within the population as a whole. Given that, and given the many effects of race on wealth and on other aspects of environment that correlate to IQ, and given that both IQ and genetic testing are worst among the most oppressed groups, we should not be hasty in concluding from trends we see in relatively homogeneous sub-populations that the same trend would be seen in other sub-populations or the population as a whole.
That’s only true is the inaccuracy is effectively noise. If there is a consistent bias in the test, more tests won’t solve for it.
I don’t think this is true, but it depends a lot on how the test is being administered. An illiterate farmer who’s never been inside a brick building is going to perform very differently on a test that involves paper or mentally rotating bricks, and not because of anything like what we should be talking about when we say “intelligence”.
Again I’d point to Simpson’s paradox: within the sub-populations of a) developed-world college students and b) illiterate farmers, we could see a trend in where the test result correlates with what we’d recognize as IRL intelligence: IRL smarter college kids do better than IRL dumber college kids; IRL smarter farmers do better than IRL dumber farmers. But that doesn’t tell us anything about the trend we would see between those populations.
What came first…Careless…IQ or wealth?
Did trade develop before humans existed or did humans create economic systems, and trade, and cultures based on their intelligence?
Correct it is genetics which is the predominate cause of IQ.
I am not well versed in Simpson’s Paradox no.
I speak from practical experience and logical axioms.
Humans, generally speaking, can be nasty chimpanzees that can be oppressive to each other. I am wondering do you view blacks as exempt and blacks as holy beings? Only the white devils doing oppression?
Blacks: Glorify rap music, which glorifies, violence, gangs, alpha male, status seeking, money seeking, misogyny, rape, ablism, anti-wokeness, homophobia, transphobia, rivalry between artists, narcissism, boastfulness, conspicious consumption.
Many or most of these things go against modern White ethics and sensibilities.
What further challenges the “blacks as holy” narrative is that in the 1500s-1700s African sub-saharan blacks would sell other blacks into slavery. In the American South 1/3rd of slave owners were Negroes themselves.
Your approach seems to be that “blacks are holy” whites are “white devils” that took advantage of black people and that is why Africa is dilapidated and in disarray. And you rely on this narrative because its not wrong, but actually true that whites did in fact exploit black people. What’s missing though is the fact that races compete for dominance and if black people had the same intelligence and discipline as whites they would have probably done the same to Whitey and then it would be “black devils” narrative. They didn’t because they had inferior technology and inferior discipline and inferior cooperation amongst their tribes, and also failed to create civilizations beyond mere tribes.
I may not be familiar with Simpsons paradox but I know reality.
Anybody who can watch this video with a straight-face isn’t human.
That is not to say that all blacks are like this, in fact many blacks are smarter than the white average as shown with the chart posted earlier. Some might even call them oreos.
In fact some might even view blacks (the stereotypical Negro blacks in the video) as “healthy” compared to Whites which are more like a feminized, academic pen-pusher Nietzsche type character. Its all a matter of opinion. In fact some might view this as “true” democracy, men shouting at each other until a consensus is reached.
By your own racist calculus you would have to agree that wealth came first: the English were richer and had better technology when they seized Hong Kong from China, even though you claim that Asians are genetically superior to whites.
There a lot of versions of trade, so it depends on what you mean; Capuchin monkeys will readily engage in rudimentary trade.
I’d suggest that human migration was more causal in the development of trade than was human intelligence. Groups in the same area likely had little reason to trade rather than fight; groups that moved from place to place would have had resources and needs different from the groups they encountered.
Trade definitely preceded the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia. It could have preceded sapiens.
You’re confusing heritability with cause. Ask your oracle what happens to heritability as differences in environment increase.
Please quote anything I’ve said that resembles this.
This claim is where this thread started. As I’ve argued at length, the evidence from the distribution of early civilizations and the pattern of technological development and spread are better explained by early trade routes and wealth than they are by intelligence. The genetic explanation fails to account for most of that pattern, and depends on speculative genetics that have yet to be demonstrated. Trade not only accounts for the pattern of development, but does so by appeal to very well-established patterns of how trade affects development – effectively every major city on Earth is located next to a natural deep-water harbor or a navigable waterway!
You should say more things about how you don’t understand statistics but are nonetheless very confident that your population-level causal narratives are correct. That is a strong rhetorical argument.
My “calculus” begins with the emergence of man in Africa, and does not make convenient stops along the way to the first settlements and economic trades.
IQ and all traits developed throughout this period.
Cultures and technologies emerges as a consequence of tens of thousands of years of natural selection, before, during and after the first civilizations arose.
evolution doesn’t conveniently begin and stop to suit your delusional model.
By the time we get to trade and the English we have 70 000 years of natural selection.
Now we can get into how cultures affect these naturally selected traits, and why Mongoloids, despite a higher on average IQ, were dominated by Caucasians.
We can’t get into the complexities of gene/memes if you, and those like you, refuse the rational fact that environmental adversity determines intelligence, especially when everything of the current world supports this fact.
You must be kidding, right?
This form of trade is, for you, what created the social overachieves that kept some races down?
Even if we accept ti…what made one group use trade to dominate the others?
How did this advantage evolve, if these groups were in constant contact, and environment does not affect the brain, but only the body?
At this point you will do anything, ANYTHING, to not admit that human sub-species were the product of natural selection, and that social circusmtnaces reflect this past.
You still have no clue how natural selection works,…to produce species, and sub-species.
There seems to be an emotional block…
once again…
Environmental pressures (adversity) + isolation + time = sub-species on the road to developing into species.
If you cannot grasp this, or refuse to accept it, then you msut provide an alternate method explaining speciation.
Trade is not it.
Bacteria, fish, reptiles, do not trade.
Mammals do no trade, unless they are big brained, such as primates, whales, dolphins, etc…and still this cannot explain how a common ancestor splinters into two distinct sub-species that becoems two or more distinct species.
Without isolaiton the advantageous mutations spread within a population, producing uniformity, Carelesss, not divergence…UNIFORMITY.
This is why members of the same species exhibit uniform appearances and behaviors…with slight deviations…because mutations are constantly arising, and most are not advantageous.
you must per forma a lot of linguistic and intellectual backflips to maintain your delusions…
Aren’t you ashamed to be doing so much spin-doctoring, exposing your emotinoal desperation?
Wow!
At least try to pretend you are objective…and an actual philosopher interested in the truth.
You are a Marxist…using Marxist talking points - it was those vile exploiting capitalists that caused human differences…because humans are uniformly the same…except they are not.
Capitalism is not the cause of diversity, Careless. Capitalism exploits weaknesses and promotes uniformity through its market based hierarchies.
Every time you think this, substitute in, “I must be misunderstanding you”.
I agree.
We disagree about this. As far as I can tell, your only evidence for this claim is the pattern of civilizational and technological development in early humans, layered with endless post-hoc explanations about culture to disregard the many many cases in which that pattern does not fit your model.
No, but it is rudimentary trade. Trade didn’t arise spontaneously fully formed. Long-distance trade took place for over a hundred thousand years before the first civilizations arose in Mesopotamia. But if a Capuchin can engage in trade once introduced to it, it probably wasn’t cognitive ability that prevented trade before then.
Trade enabled one group to dominate others, because trade increases wealth. Civilizations dominated at the hub of global trade, and grew much wealthier than groups at the periphery of the network. Throughout history, we see waves of conquest flowing from trade centers that generate wealth sufficient to fund conquest.
This is a bit pedantic, but it’s relevant that there are natural relationships that are trade-like (cleaning symbiosis). To be clear, it’s not trade in the human sense, and human trade is not fully separable from human intelligence, but the fact that similar relationships can arise without intelligence is relevant to determining exactly what role intelligence played in early human trade.
And, not for nothing, it’s evidence that trade-like exchanges increase wealth (in this case, evolutionary fitness) even without intelligence.
Consider also crows, which spontaneously trade with humans. Many birds use gift exchanges in courtship and bonding, and crows generalized on that enough to attempt to exchange objects for food.
Again, this isn’t human trade, but we have really good reason to expect human trade more complex to this (mutually beneficial exchanges, gift economies) to precede civilization by a long, long time.
How about someone who tries to make an intellectual argument by posting inspirational quotes like a Facebook wine mom?
Name one.
Keep in mind that the exception proves the rule…
Once the model of natural selection has proven how intelligence evolves, then we can add other factors, like culture that inhibits or cultivates inherited range of traits.
Culture is a human intervention on natural processes, Careless.
IQ evolves due to necessity…challenges…naturally selecting creativity, innovation, thinking ‘outside the box’…less challenging environments atrophy the mind, they select for other traits…hedonism…
Human societies exploit naturally selected consequences…and adjust them…
you want to intervene to fabricate parity; to socially engineer uniformity.
You want to socially select race out of existence. And you need an excuse, so you concoct, or adopt, the idea that human differences are all socially created…a like to justify your own social interventions. You have no clue what the repercussions of this will be, because you cannot even understand how or why intelligence evolved.
In your American postmodern mind, all human diversity is about those in power holding those with no power down…which is only part of the truth.
as if men emerged in fully functional societies bustling with trade…
You have yet to account for the 70,000 year prior to any human settlements and trade.
In your brainwashed, needy mind…n
NOTHING of any significance happened. Everything happened in the last 5,000-6,000 years…because ti fits your Marxist model.
As if the early trade relationships were as sophisticated as post-industrial systems…
No trade between isolated populations.
Contact produces uniformity, not diversity.
Speciation cannot occur if there is no isolation.
Placing the horse before the cart. Careless.
The superior accentuated its dominance through economics.
adversity sparks creativity…but when the genetic divergence is large how can it overcome tens of thousands of years of natural selection?
This is why Indians, another visible minority, another group with pigmentation, does well…and Negroes do not, except for a few exceptions and most of those of mixed heritage.
When the median IQ is 15-20 points lower…that’s a huge obstacle.
You will not find many Negroes in the 120-140 IQ range…and most of those are mixed with Caucasians or Asians. Tiger Woods.
When Europeans returned to sub-Saharan Africa…thousands of years after their ancestors had been pushed out, forced to migrate into less hospitable envirnemtns…being the weaker tribes, they dominated with their superior technologies…BECAUSE of those tens of thousands of years of natural selection, that had occurred in the emantime.
They exploited them economically…as do all superior species and sub-species.
Exploitation is part of nature, Careless.
The intellect had evolved before there were even settlements, Careless…break free from your Marxist postmodern excuses.
Exploitation is a product of dominance…and dominance is a product of superiority…
Trade presumes contact, Careless…no diversification occurs with contact.
ISOLATION!!!
Contact distributes advantageous mutations across a population…it creates uniformity, not diversity.
Speciation cannot occur without ISOLATION + TIME + ADVERSITY
Without these factors there would be no biodiversity.
Look into how bonobo o sub-species broke off the chimpanzee family, and became distinct?
Same applies for humans.
The evidence is there…you refuse to see, Careless…you self-censor, because you are emotionally driven and brainwashed.
You came up with an absurd idea that human IQ evolved in Africa to its fullest, and then for 80- fuckin’-thousand-years nothing…the environment only affected the body and not the brain…ONLY for ONE fuckin SPECIES!
Why?
Because it suits your delusions…
You don’t give a shit about the truth, Carelsss, you only care about protecting the victims, because you identify as one.
Nature’s a bitch, ain’t she? Nature causes all kinds of injustices.
As if the world gives a flying fuck about your political ideals.
You had this image of a racist redneck that couldn’t defend his views, and now you appear like an ignorant desperate man, trying to come up with all sorts of excuses to remain true to your “humanitarian ideology”…wiling to sacrifice his integrity to save his worldview…all humans OUGHT to be the same…is what you want to say
Very Christian of you.
Social engineered parity, Careless…dumb down America until the lowest-common-denominator, the lowest median IQ becomes a uniform norm.
THAT’S your Utopia.
More generally, any time a group whose modern descendants perform well on IQ tests lost a conflict to a group whose descendants perform less well.
Neither isolation nor uniformity is all-or-nothing.
Chimpanzees and bonobos were isolated from each other for a million years. The most recent common ancestor for humans is much more recent, 100-200k years at most.
I feel like I’ve said this, but maybe not, and if I have it bears repeating: this word is ridiculous in a discussion of modern genetics, you should be embarrassed about it. You use it mostly to be offensive, because your beliefs are about vibes and not science. But you should consult your wine mom memes about it.
AGAIN… once we can establish the importance of race, we can proceed to explain how this is affected by culture.
Genes to Memes.
My god your not very smart, are you?
Without isolation there is no speciation.
Contact creates uniformity - this is why species look alike. Advantageous mutations propagate uniformly wihtin a population.
There is no biodiversity if there’s contact…if you cannot comprehend this…then I’m done with ya.
Yes…and?
The severity of environmental conditions factor into how much time is required for a sub-species to be produced…and then a species.
Time is also a factor in determining how severe the break will be…or, if the different populations can interbreed…like Grizzlies and polar bears…like wolves ans canines and coyotes..
Like lions and tigers. Like horses and asses and zebras..
Isolation is crucial…
The severity of the environmental pressures determine the length of time necessary for diversity to take hold…because extremely adverse environments cull disadvantageous mutations.
Here’s the formulae AGAIN: Adversity/Stress + Isolation + Time = splintering, speciation…
The severity of environmental stressors + the length of time populations remain isolated cause differences…each oppositional shaped by the mutations that offer them an advantage within their environmental, circusmtnaces.
It is said that Caucasians almost went extinct, during the Ice Age, due to the severity of environmental circumstances…as they almost did during the Black Plague…and as they are currently being exterminated by the mental disease infecting you, Careless.
The meme-parasite infecting you is exterminating Americans of European descent.
I’m sorry you find the truth “offensive”…your “white/black/yellow/red” skin pigmentation are your way of reducing race to something superficial.
African, European, Asian, confuse postmodern brainwashed Americanized minds, like yours.
Some come to believe the continent is a racial boundary…like your buddy Sculptor did…so, for you and him, ancient-Egypt, being in north Africa is African…and sub-Saharan, living beneath the geographic barrier of the desert, are one and the same race. So, spare me your virtue signalling…Negro is how I deal with such word-games.
Afro-Asiatic, Semitic populations are not Negroes…Berbers are not Negroes…even though they do live in Africa.
The proper designations are:
Caucasoid Negroid Mongoloid.
Australoid
Each with its sub-categories.
Species, sub-species (races), sub-sub-species…
Categories and sub-categories.
If we include culture then ethnicities are subcategories of linguistic families - memes.
Things can complex…for desperate minds, like yours, who must preserve your delusional myths.
you like to focus in the last 6-10 thousand years…despite the fact that what could have exacerbated human inequalities was not possible before modern systems…
Early trading may have began inter-group stratification but the populations remained racially and culturally distinct…all the way uo to the Industrial and then Digital revolutions.
So the last few hundred years.
Language families outline racial categories and their geographic spread - a testament of their migrations and interactions with other races, AFTER races were established and cultures emerged, in the last 6-10 thousand years.
That you find the term “Negro” offensive simply proves how brainwashed you are.
Black/White is how people like you wish to reduce the category of race - reduce it to a level you can then mock and dismiss.
No, sub-Saharan Africans, blacks,…are Negroes.
Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.
So, 70,000 years of natural selection - GENES
10 000 years (I’m being very generous, the truth is the number is closer to 6 thousand) - MEMES
Genes - Memes
Natural selection gradually morphs into social selection.
How genes and memes interact is what confuses you, and what people like you use to dismiss human races.
ONLY ONE SPECIES is not allowed to have sub-species…for ideological reasons.
I mean, you can ban me, Careless, and come up with some lame excuse…like “too competitive” or “bigot”…or “insulting,” as you have in the past.
Funny how even here you only seem to notice rule abusers in those you dislike or those that exposes your delusions.
You aren’t a philosopher…you’re an activist using philosophy as a means to justify your political views.
You are a typical Americanized man-child.
You dream of a just world…and you want to bring it about with lies.
You want to “correct nature’s injustices” with propaganda…by redefining words, like ‘race’…and censoring words like ‘Negro.’
But the real does not disappear because minds like yours pretend it is not so.
How can you ‘correct’ what you deny that it even exists?
How can change an effect when you’ve failed to correctly identify the cause?
Your lies will destroy America…because, listen up Careless, when American midwits and dimwits are convinced that race is a social construct, and they fail to correct it through social means - affirmative actions and the such - then they conclude that the entire system is racist…not that their opinions are flawed, but the ssytem is…
What happens then, Careless?
Under the influence of their lies they fail to produce their utopia, and must blame someone for their failure…
Who do they blame?
“Whites,” as you call them. “Bigoted, Nazi, racist, redneck, skinhead white males”…and that’s when the Second Civil War will be sparked…out of frustration.
To continue on the theme, neither contact nor speciation is all-or-nothing.
Biodiversity will persist when contact is limited and a species faces different local environmental selective pressure. Full isolation isn’t necessary, it just requires that genes pass between adjacent populations slowly/infrequently enough for local selective pressure to have a pruning effect.
I basically agree, but some nits:
Rather than ‘Adversity/Stress’, I’d say ‘selective pressure’. What matters is how strongly individual adaptations determine reproductive success, which can happen during a population boom or bust.
And ‘Isolation’ and ‘Time’ should be something like ‘rate of gene flow’. In a sense, every reproductive event is isolated from every other, but what matters for speciation/diversity is the graph of gene transfer through generations. So it’s no time per se, and it’s not isolation per se, it’s how quickly an adaptive mutation can spread through a population, which is a function of how often a species reproduces and how many connections between populations there are.
So the result would be:
Selective Pressure + (Connections/Generation)*Generations = Splintering/Speciation
My understanding is that that near extinction event was global. Humans as a whole have gone through multiple bottlenecks. We’re not a very genetically diverse species.
Those categories were invented before Darwin was born. You want to talk about genetics, just use genetic language. Talk about y-chromosome or mtDNA haplogroups.
Here’s the distribution of the Y-DNA F Haplogroup, which of your 18th century nonsense categories would you put them in?
More likely you don’t understand the genetics, you don’t know that y-chomosome haplogroups and mtDNA haplogroups aren’t identical and don’t have identical geographic distributions (and don’t account for most of the genome), you don’t want to acknowledge genetic diversity within populations or that different populations have different amounts of genetic diversity.
Come off it, it’s not about truth or accurate description or ‘dealing with word-games’ by using an 18th century category that doesn’t fit modern genetics and is used exclusively by racists to express racism – totally believable that you’re trying to avoid activism!
You use it because you’re an edgelord, you like being a dick and using racist language is just another way for you to be a dick. Great job pursuing truth.
Sub-species (races, breeds) are categories of speciation that failed to completely separate…because one of the 3 factors was lacking.
When the tribes that left Africa returned through the Sinai, they found there Negroes that had made it up the Nile, and established their mud-hut villages.
Those that returned were Afro-Asiatic tribes…not Negroes…some mixing must have occurred, but not enuogh to dilute the genes and prevent them from creating the wonders of ancient-Egypt…later some Pharaohs were more Negro than Semitic…but not for long.
And yet…four distinct racial categories:
Negroid, Caucasoid, Australoid and Mongoloid…each with their sub-categories.
We can identify them by sight…even if they’ve mixed.
Negroid sub-categories
If we add memes, culture, they are the Niger-Congolese Language tree, corresponding to that distinct sub-Saharan race.
If the truth bothers you and you want to imagine ways of defending your delusion that race is a social construct…then you stay as you are.
Ignore everything that contradicts your already established emotional delusions.
Modern science is dominated by money…nothing honest can come from there, concerning human races and sexes…they, even, refused to define woman…and lent credence to the other lie that a man can be born in a woman’s body.
James Watson: Scientist loses titles after claims over race
This is what happens when you contradict the official narrative…the American narrative.
Scientists beware, if you challenge the narrative you will lose your career and you will be slandered.
Did you see how many cowered when Woke was at its highest power.
They didn’t dare define what a woman is…and that was only 4 years of insanity…postmodern Marxist, liberal insanity…like what you have.
Ignore your eyes…ignore current performances, and crime statistics, ignore historical facts like the absence of anything comparable…ignore it all Careless…It’s all an illusion. Invent imaginative excuses…like the human race reached its intellectual peak in Africa…and then stopped, for 75,000+ years…until trade created human differences.
And you believe this nonsense…the environment only affects the body…profoundly, but leaves the brain unaffected…just because you say so…just because it fits with your Marxist model.
Well, Careless, I cannot deal with your psychological issues…the US will be destroyed by its lies, and the biggest one is that race is a social construct.
Internal conflict has already begun…in my estimation the next American Civil War will occur about 200 years after the first one…
You cannot correct a lie…
Now, the culprit is systemic racism, and “white males”…not Caucasoid…‘white’, so your kind will tear America down…and nothing will be left once ‘whites’ are replaced with who? Negroes and Mestizos?
They will maintain and advance the American system in the 21st century? They will compete with nations like India, Russia, and China?
There will come a time when you can no longer import brain power from Europe and India and China…compensating for what you are losing due to miscegenation and the vilification of whites.
Can Mestizos and Blacks create the American project, anew?
Hardly. If they could they would have already created it in their nations.
Your delusions will be part of what destroys the US.
A people with a median IQ of 90, cannot replace a population with a median IQ of 100.
Affirmative action, edumacation…will not increase IQ…nutrition, will not correct IQ differences…
Tens of thousands of years of natural selection cannot be erased with words and social engineering interventions.
It’s fun that I’ve corrected you about this mischaracterization of my views a half dozen times, and then you repeat it in the process of accusing me of inventing things. What’s it called when you can’t respond to someone’s argument so you make up a different argument to respond to instead?
The Jews learned a lot from the Nazis…and they control your media and Hollywood…repeating the same lies…over and over…
They’ve repeated them for so long they have now come to believe them…and that is why the US is doomed.
Please notice that this is the level of reading comprehension/logical inference/intellectual honesty you are using to insulate your beliefs, and consider how confident you should be in those beliefs.
