PDA

View Full Version : Smart ancient people



LeBrok
21-01-10, 11:03
How come ancient Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Greeks and Romans were so smart? At least at the beginning and the height of their times. Basically they invented and laid down all the building blocks of sciences, literature, arts, architecture, finances etc. And we are talking about a million of citizens in each country, not 50 million as right now.
High national average IQ?
Smart elite?
Pure luck?

Then when their civilizations collapsed, there was a big mess in Europe. The rest of European peoples couldn't grow or even continue on Romans and Greeks achievements, and Europe went into dark ages for next 1 000 years. Why was that? Was the rest of Europe not smart enough? Low average IQ?
One could assume that through disasters/bottlenecks of middle ages they did smarten up finally.

Maciamo
21-01-10, 12:33
I don't think they were smarter than average, and certainly not smarter than smart people today. Great achievements have more to do with political stability, good economy, and a favourable cultural setting. The main reason Europe fell unto the Dark Ages is Christianity. The Dark Ages didn't start after the fall of the Roman Empire, but in the 4th century when Christianity became the state religion. The Byzantines remained independent for a thousand years after the fall of Rome, but were just a bleak shadow of the pre-Christian Roman Empire.

Christianity made people wait for a better after-life paradise instead of trying to improve society. It strongly discouraged sciences, innovations and any philosophical questioning of how Nature works. Furthermore the Church acted as an absolute monarchy of divine right, and encouraged a feudal system in which the European aristocracy was subjugated to the Pope's will. The Roman Catholic Church saw itself as the heir of the Roman Empire. It was like a virus taking over a healthy body and turning it into a zombie.

Europe managed to extricate itself from the grip of the Church little by little from the 15th to the 18th century. Once educated people stopped being Christian a new era of progress was born, known as the Enlightenment. Our modern society was basically founded by the 18th-century Enlightenment (except for some religious zealots who couldn't stand it and migrated to America, notably in the south-eastern US states where the Enlightenment still hasn't reached most of the population).

People have been smart for thousands of years. It's just that they are not always free to use their potential because of oppressive religions. The two most intellectually oppressive religions in history are Christianity and Islam.

LeBrok
20-03-10, 00:05
I'm pretty sure the process was slow in scale of couple of thousands of years, with few bottlenecks to speed up the process, before we started seeing, big populations, building big cities, organized political systems, big variety of specialized trades, growing economies, monetary/exchange systems, and beginning of sciences.

I know it's not very scientific of me to say that, but I wonder sometimes how on scale of today's standardized IQ tests, smart they were on average. I think the bottom must be around 85 or 90, of early Egypt of Babylon and others from that time. I think it's hard to imposible to run a succesful country with population IQ lower than 80, at least for longer time.
I'm really at awe with ancient Greeks. They invented so many things or improved borrowed ideas intensively, and we are talking about populations of no more than one million people, probably less. It's much easier to be born into well running system and learn the ropes, but it's 10 times more difficult to invent and implement new things and ideas. How smart were the Greeks? 110? How about Romans at the height of their empire? I think the Phoenicians belonged to this (ancient hi-tech) group too. It would be interesting to know if average IQ in Europe fluctuated with centuries and if it was related to high and low points in European history.
If in future we'll be able to estimate IQ from genetic material we might find the answers to few mysteries.

Pumarin
18-06-13, 15:06
I'm sorry but I wanted to add something to the thread about spanish celts and the colour of our hair and the thread is closed, I hope you dont mind, by the way I'm new here, so a big Hello to everyone from Asturies.

The question should have been made the other way round... WHY ARE BRITISH CELTS SO BLOND ?

The answer is very very simple, Indo-europeans come from a place between Kazajstan and Mongolia..British celt tribes shouldn't be so blond, the only reason why british celts are blond is because they were invaded so many times by Vikings (specially in the north of the british isles) that they lost count...remember that vikings killed all men and boys and raped all women in order to implant their race (Viking race) ...Who is the awkward celt then ?. Please think about it.

adamo
18-06-13, 15:54
If celts are R1b, as most Brits, Irish, French, Spanish, Belgian people are today, then they came from the steppes of Russia and then moved from there deep into Western Europe, and this some 30000-35000 years ago I believe. If this is true then they are not at all genetically similar to modern day Kazakhs or Mongolians you speak of, not at all. It's not because they passed by Kazakhstan or Central Asia several tens of thousands of years ago, that they're genetically similar to those people today. Are these celts you speak of genetically similar to middle easterners? No, but they came from there once. British are so blond because they're high in R1b y-DNA and H,V etc. mtdna which is European haplogroups predominantly. I1 is only about 10% of British males (Scandinavian/Viking gene). Eyre so blond because the members of their haplogroups spent time in some of the coldest/ most northerly distributed places + natural selection/personal preferences is why their so "white man", their DNA is European, and yet they vary from the Vikings (Norwegians/swedes, slightly more similar to Danes.) as they are very high R1b whereas Norwegians/Swedes are very high I1 ( but also have R1b AND R1a which is very very rare in Western Europe.)

nordicquarreler
18-06-13, 18:33
How come ancient Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Greeks and Romans were so smart? At least at the beginning and the height of their times. Basically they invented and laid down all the building blocks of sciences, literature, arts, architecture, finances etc. And we are talking about a million of citizens in each country, not 50 million as right now.
High national average IQ?
Smart elite?
Pure luck?

Then when their civilizations collapsed, there was a big mess in Europe. The rest of European peoples couldn't grow or even continue on Romans and Greeks achievements, and Europe went into dark ages for next 1 000 years. Why was that? Was the rest of Europe no smart enough? Low average HQ?
One could assume that through disasters/bottle necks of middle ages they did smarten up finally.

I think the Norse felt the way of life under Roman civilization was stifling and dishonorable. I'm guessing they avoided it for as long as possible. Don't think it was a lack of intelligence, probably the exact opposite.

Jackson
18-06-13, 20:38
If celts are R1b, as most Brits, Irish, French, Spanish, Belgian people are today, then they came from the steppes of Russia and then moved from there deep into Western Europe, and this some 30000-35000 years ago I believe. If this is true then they are not at all genetically similar to modern day Kazakhs or Mongolians you speak of, not at all. It's not because they passed by Kazakhstan or Central Asia several tens of thousands of years ago, that they're genetically similar to those people today. Are these celts you speak of genetically similar to middle easterners? No, but they came from there once. British are so blond because they're high in R1b y-DNA and H,V etc. mtdna which is European haplogroups predominantly. I1 is only about 10% of British males (Scandinavian/Viking gene). Eyre so blond because the members of their haplogroups spent time in some of the coldest/ most northerly distributed places + natural selection/personal preferences is why their so "white man", their DNA is European, and yet they vary from the Vikings (Norwegians/swedes, slightly more similar to Danes.) as they are very high R1b whereas Norwegians/Swedes are very high I1 ( but also have R1b AND R1a which is very very rare in Western Europe.)

I1 varies from less than 10% to 25-30% depending on where you go.

Nobody1
18-06-13, 21:47
I think the Norse felt the way of life under Roman civilization was stifling and dishonorable. I'm guessing they avoided it for as long as possible. Don't think it was a lack of intelligence, probably the exact opposite.

Im not sure how much contact the Norse had with Roman Civ. (prob. close to none) .......... but its always the same old question........what have the Romans ever done for us..........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

ebAmerican
18-06-13, 21:49
I think the Norse felt the way of life under Roman civilization was stifling and dishonorable. I'm guessing they avoided it for as long as possible. Don't think it was a lack of intelligence, probably the exact opposite.

This was true with all non-Roman subjects. You typically don't adopt a new culture, you are subjugated by it becoming Romanticized against your own will. Celts had no interest in being Roman, until Rome forced itself on them. It took many generations to make the switch to a Romanticized Celtic culture. Roman influence ended on the Rhine, and subjugation didn't occur further north. I seriously doubt that most people even knew beyond the Rhine who Rome was. All they knew was these items traded along northern routes came from the south.

The early church needed to solitify it's rule, and that meant rejecting pagan Roman virtues and practices (theater, science, et.). I agree with Maciamo the church was a major road block for progress after the collapse of the Roman empire. A lot of knowledge was suppressed and forgotten.

Nobody1
18-06-13, 21:58
I think trade routes are an important aspect, in all of this;

Egypt and Mesopotamia were the first high civs. (excluding China and whatever went on in the far east); due the high fertility (Nile delta / Euphrat / Tigris) and extensive trade routes [from Punt - Indus valley];

All knowledge came from the East, - Agriculture, Metallurgy, Alphabet, Astronomy etc.

Let not forget EUROPA is a Phoenician princess, and the Greeks adopted their Alphabet from the Phoenicians;


the flow of knowledge: very simplistically

Phoenicians & Minoans > Greeks > Etruscans > Italics (Roman society) > Spread by the Roman sword across Europe

re-discovery of knowledge: very simplistically

Carolingian Dynasty > Crusades > Renaissance

LeBrok
18-06-13, 22:10
I think the Norse felt the way of life under Roman civilization was stifling and dishonorable. I'm guessing they avoided it for as long as possible. Don't think it was a lack of intelligence, probably the exact opposite.
Sure, it was the clash of cultures. It is pretty much typical thing that we like most what we grew up with and tend to hate everything that's different, even cultures of others. It is very apparent in every western country how much we like muslim culture, and vice versa. Everybody's feeling a better human with superior culture at same time. I don't think it was a different story with Norse.



Then when their civilizations collapsed, there was a big mess in Europe. The rest of European peoples couldn't grow or even continue on Romans and Greeks achievements, and Europe went into dark ages for next 1 000 years. Why was that? Was the rest of Europe no smart enough? Low average HQ?
One could assume that through disasters/bottle necks of middle ages they did smarten up finally.
I've managed to find an answer to this. The collapse of Rome was mostly due to little ice age, which caused failed crops, diseases, decline of population, and collapse of economy which was 80% based in agriculture back then. On other hand the pick of Rome power falls into the warmest period of that era, around year 0.
I was hoping to find time and do a little project showing relations between past empires and climate change in Europe. So far not much time for a hobby.

Nobody1
18-06-13, 22:17
Roman influence ended on the Rhine, and subjugation didn't occur further north. I seriously doubt that most people even knew beyond the Rhine who Rome was. All they knew was these items traded along northern routes came from the south.

i would double check that,
Hermann der Cherusker was educated in Rome, so at least he would have known; and of course not to be forgotten, the Extensive trade and contact of the Augustus and Tiberius reign; Roman expedtions into Free Germania and Germanic raids into Roman Territory also brought us closer;


and dont confuse the Roman decadency of the Emperors,
with the strict, pragmatic and organised Roman systems (Urban centers, Military etc);
plus Rome was a care free society regarding Religion; and Roman was a right not an ethnicity;

Yetos
18-06-13, 23:57
OnceI really don't remember in which thread I mention the antikythera mecanism.

The first mecanical computer of the world was probably made in Syracuse or Corinth or Alexandreia


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjPxemeUyas

remember that time Greeks did not know eclipse as geometrical shape at that time , but use roling circles, a circle that its center is moving gives also a good estimetion of an eclipse as the rotation of the radius runs with stable velocity and the center is moving, the shape that the end of the radius is almost an eclipse,

Κωνικες τομες (conics, the surface of a sharp cone with a level) were searched later at Θεωνας time (theon of Alexandreia) asnd his Daughter Υπατεια (hypateia) which cristian mood stone her,

so i do not think that modern people were smarter than before 2000,
THE SAVED KNOWLEDGE WAS LESS,
SCHOOLS WERE EXPENSIVE OR DID NOT EXIST,
THEY LEARN WITH A STICK IN SAND, OR WITH CALCIUM STONE (chalk) UPON BLACK SURFACE.

after Alexandreia's BIBLIOTETHEKE writers, it was Gutenberg that help in saving and pass knowledge.

remember Archimedes παλιμψηστα palipsest were exting in West (burned?) and were erased in East with lemon to write prayers to God.
(thank gods pergamene was expensive)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3IP_FmGams

so if the first mechanical computer was made before christ, why we needed >2000 to make one?
why since aristoteles and ptolemy state about flat Erth but also put an argue, we needed > 15 centuries?

1. after 313 the knowledge was priviledge of the clerics
2. Money were spend to buy indulegentiae or build churches or buy silk for bishops.
3. all non cleric's signature knowledge was 'magic' 'paganism' (many Greeks and many ancient 'smart' philosophers were burned or stoned or crusified for paganism,
4. you buy a book with hyms and prayers to save your soul, but not a math one,
5, SCHOOLS WERE TEACHING ONLY "DIVINE' KNOWLEDGE"
6, SO WE NEEDED illustratio, regenerationem, Αναγεννηση Διαφωτισμος (and maybe Arabs and crusaders!!) to restart all sciences.

take a look at Quaker civilization,
their love to God create a culture that deny's as Diavolic each invention and stay infront of ancient people but away from modern humans.
But to be a quaker is a personal choice so I respect it,
but to force you be an amish or a quaker is DARK TIMES

The fantasy of the ancients was amazing,
the fantasy of future is were the limits of a Nintendo or PS game ends.

@ Nobody1
Life of Brian is a fantastic movie,
a radical thetrical movie equal to some great thetrical scenarios or ancient tragedies.
But I was expecting the other scene, the one where women stone a person cause he call the name of God. (forbiden knowledge?)
Blessed are the cheese makers. :good_job:

ebAmerican
19-06-13, 00:31
I would question Arminius connection to Rome. Rome was known to make up stories to justify a defeat. The Arminius story could be an attempt to explain how a barbarian tribe could defeat three legions. I wouldn't call Roman artifacts in German and Scandinavian sites as trade, but more like raids and eventually gift exchange between Germanic chieftains. Some of the booty would have been acquired by reconquest west of the Rhine. Those who fought directly with the Roman soldiers would of known something of Rome, but I bet their knowledge was very limited. The full Romanization of Europe didn't happen until after the christianization of Rome itself. In Gaul Roman influence was restricted to the Roman cities founded, but in the rural areas they held on to their Celtic customs and language. When the Latin/Celtic aristocracy broke down during the 5th century they flooded the rural areas imposing their vulgar Latin and Christianity on the farming folk. Anglo Saxon raiders coming into England didn't reuse existing Roman towns, but settled alongside of them. The fact that these sites were not reused tells me they had very little knowledge of Roman architecture, and the up keep of such buildings. They used the old roman sites as grazing pastures. They may of known of them, but their knowledge was limited.

nordicquarreler
19-06-13, 02:23
Im not sure how much contact the Norse had with Roman Civ. (prob. close to none) .......... but its always the same old question........what have the Romans ever done for us..........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Let's go with this line of thinking for a tad...

The Native American Indians were defeated by the white man and his culture. Europeans brought education, science, advanced weaponry etc., etc. Similiar to what the Romans would have brought to the Norse (and Northern Celts for that matter).

How did this new "improvement" in conditions pan out for these Native Americans? Please visit a reservation so you can see the conditions most Indians suffer through to this day.

The Norse spoke openly of their eventual absorption into the more Southernly ways and it even played a part in their religious practices. They viewed it as sad but impossible to avoid.

Nobody1
19-06-13, 02:52
Well, i dont think the Romans had muskets back than; or traded useless glass pearls with Germanic chieftains either;
Let alone sell them alcohol and toxic blankets;

And did Sitting Bull call upon the King of England and France and Netherlands and Spain to America?

min 21:00 onward (especially min 26:00 onward)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLpgVEfy4mQ

Verica wasnt the only ruler that called the Romans to help;
The Massiliot Greeks called the Romans over the Alps when they were besieged by Ligures;
The Gauls called the Romans to the Rhine when the [Germanic] Ariovistus raided their territory;
and many other rulers......

Roman history (Roman era Europe) is very complex - Mommsen has a good book on it
def. not a split between Stupid Savage Barbarians and Noble Smart Civilized;

I tend to view it in a Broader Indo-European context;

Nobody1
19-06-13, 03:10
I would question Arminius connection to Rome. Rome was known to make up stories to justify a defeat. The Arminius story could be an attempt to explain how a barbarian tribe could defeat three legions. I wouldn't call Roman artifacts in German and Scandinavian sites as trade, but more like raids and eventually gift exchange between Germanic chieftains. Some of the booty would have been acquired by reconquest west of the Rhine. Those who fought directly with the Roman soldiers would of known something of Rome, but I bet their knowledge was very limited. The full Romanization of Europe didn't happen until after the christianization of Rome itself. In Gaul Roman influence was restricted to the Roman cities founded, but in the rural areas they held on to their Celtic customs and language. When the Latin/Celtic aristocracy broke down during the 5th century they flooded the rural areas imposing their vulgar Latin and Christianity on the farming folk. Anglo Saxon raiders coming into England didn't reuse existing Roman towns, but settled alongside of them. The fact that these sites were not reused tells me they had very little knowledge of Roman architecture, and the up keep of such buildings. They used the old roman sites as grazing pastures. They may of known of them, but their knowledge was limited.

Doubtful;

---

As for Britannia check out Saxon Shore,
The Saxons raided Roman Britain for a good 100-150 years before their total Invasion and Conquest
(beginning ~410 AD / 16th regnal year of Honorius);

Eutropius - Book IX
XXI, During this period, Carausius, who, though of very mean birth, had gained extraordinary reputation by a course of active service in war, having received a commission in his post at Bononia, to clear the sea, which the Franks and Saxons infested, along the coast of Belgica and Armorica, and having captured 'numbers of the barbarians on several occasions, but having never given back the entire booty to the people of the province or sent it to the emperors, and there being a suspicion, in consequence, that the barbarians were intentionally allowed by him to congregate there, that he might seize them and their booty as they passed, and by that means enrich himself, assumed, on being sentenced by Maximian to be put to death,", the imperial purple, and took on him the government of Britain.

Franks landed south / Saxons landed north of the channel;
But safe to say even the Saxons knew the Romans very well;

nordicquarreler
19-06-13, 03:39
Well, i dont think the Romans had muskets back than; or traded useless glass pearls with Germanic chieftains either;
Let alone sell them alcohol and toxic blankets;

And did Sitting Bull call upon the King of England and France and Netherlands and Spain to America?

min 21:00 onward (especially min 26:00 onward)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLpgVEfy4mQ

Verica wasnt the only ruler that called the Romans to help;
The Massiliot Greeks called the Romans over the Alps when they were besieged by Ligures;
The Gauls called the Romans to the Rhine when the [Germanic] Ariovistus raided their territory;
and many other rulers......

Roman history (Roman era Europe) is very complex - Mommsen has a good book on it
def. not a split between Stupid Savage Barbarians and Noble Smart Civilized;

I tend to view it in a Broader Indo-European context;

Yikes. You're completely missing my point.

Let's stay focused on our conversation and avoid all the glitter (ie. 49 minute videos). The Norse aren't less intelligent because the Dark Ages happened after the collapse of the Roman Empire. It's my position the Norse weren't crazy about adopting this "new and improved" way of civilized life because they knew they had a more noble existence and were bummed about losing it.

When the yoke of modern living was finally placed over their collective heads, they proved how intelligent/cooperative/industrious they could be. I don't see how anyone could argue any differently. No evidence of inferior intelligence from the Northerners in my view.

And I tend to view history in a broader HUMAN context.

Nobody1
19-06-13, 04:08
Yikes. You're completely missing my point.

Let's stay focused on our conversation and avoid all the glitter (ie. 49 minute videos). The Norse aren't less intelligent because the Dark Ages happened after the collapse of the Roman Empire. It's my position the Norse weren't crazy about adopting this "new and improved" way of civilized life because they knew they had a more noble existence and were very bummed about losing it.

When the yoke of modern living was finally placed over their collective heads, they proved how intelligent/cooperative/industrious they could be. I don't see how anyone could argue any differently. No evidence of inferior intelligence from the Northerners in my view.

And I tend to view history in a broader HUMAN context.

Well than we 100% agree with eachother,

i thought this would be some Hollywood nonsense of the savage Germanics and than along came the gallant Romans.........

Of course the Germanic people had there own structure of society [was it more sophisticated than Greece; def. not] but nobody admired them more than the Romans;
Strabo records that the Romans viewed the GERMANI as genuine/pure (unlike the Gauls or themselves);

Strabo - Book VII
Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the Germans, who, though they vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said the Celti are. And I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name "Germani," as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were "genuine" Galatae, for in the language of the Romans "germani" means "genuine."

http://www.geschichtsseiten.de/htm/bilder/germanen1.jpg

---

PS: watch the clip, espec. from 26 min onwards, it explains that the Romans had their provs. largely administrated by the natives and granted spiritual/mythological freedoms to all...........so the Roman empire was largely barbaric (but not free) to begin with. That was my point. Roman is a right not an ethnicity.

nordicquarreler
19-06-13, 06:55
Okay, thanks for the clarification Nobody1. I hadn't heard of that quote from Strabo-- nice find.

hope
19-06-13, 16:36
The Norse aren't less intelligent because the Dark Ages happened.


I agree, I don`t think the Norse were at all stupid. They didn`t want Christianity either, they were very happy with their pagan beliefs.
I also don`t think the Medieval period was really so dark as we are sometimes lead to think.

LeBrok
19-06-13, 18:11
Let's go with this line of thinking for a tad...

The Native American Indians were defeated by the white man and his culture. Europeans brought education, science, advanced weaponry etc., etc. Similiar to what the Romans would have brought to the Norse (and Northern Celts for that matter).

How did this new "improvement" in conditions pan out for these Native Americans? Please visit a reservation so you can see the conditions most Indians suffer through to this day.

The Norse spoke openly of their eventual absorption into the more Southernly ways and it even played a part in their religious practices. They viewed it as sad but impossible to avoid.

You are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. Norse were farmers so their ways were not that different from citizen of Roman empire, plus they were already acquainted with alcohol long time before that. On other hand Native Americans are hunter-gatherers who can't deal with alcohol. It is very crippling effect. They don't want to (or can't) follow their traditional ways, but have terrible time assimilating to mainstream culture.
Norse didn't want to change their traditional ways, but when the right time came they settled down, accepted christianity and embraced main european culture.

LeBrok
19-06-13, 18:15
I also don`t think the Medieval period was really so dark as we are sometimes lead to think.
The darkest part for me is the lose of technological achievements, science, education and organization of Roman Empire. It took Europe something like 800 years to get beck to similar level.

Templar
19-06-13, 22:59
You are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. Norse were farmers so their ways were not that different from citizen of Roman empire, plus they were already acquainted with alcohol long time before that. On other hand Native Americans are hunter-gatherers who can't deal with alcohol. It is very crippling effect. They don't want to (or can't) follow their traditional ways, but have terrible time assimilating to mainstream culture.
Norse didn't want to change their traditional ways, but when the right time came they settled down, accepted christianity and embraced main european culture.

Uhm LeeBrok, most Native Americans were farmers and not hunter-gatherers. The entire eastern United States was composed of various farming tribe confederations. But you are Canadian so I guess your individual experiences have created the illusion that most Natives were were Inuit-style people. For example the mound building people around the Mississippi basin had a flourishing agricultural civilization which reached a population size comparable to that of many European countries at that time.

Boss
19-06-13, 23:48
I agree, I don`t think the Norse were at all stupid. They didn`t want Christianity either, they were very happy with their pagan beliefs.
I also don`t think the Medieval period was really so dark as we are sometimes lead to think.

Preach it, sister. Medievalists unite!

Seriously though, the High-Late Middle Ages weren't that bad. Let's not forget that not everything that is good and pure comes from the Enlightenment. Many toxic ideas also sprang from it (e.g. nationalism).

hope
20-06-13, 00:33
The darkest part for me is the lose of technological achievements, science, education and organization of Roman Empire. It took Europe something like 800 years to get beck to similar level.

Certainly, and I agree with that for the most LeBrok, yes.

What I had in mind however when I said the medieval period was not so dark, was in the West, especially in Britain, after the withdrawal of Rome.
Most place the official Dark Ages from the 5th to15th C. We are lead to believe with the departure of Rome and the central power she gave, society collapsed. Learning and the arts ceased.It is this I have the problem with and it is mostly the Victorian archeologists I think are to blame for this view.
Archeology from the 1980s has shown a different side to that. For example, pottery found in East Yorkshire has been dated to 5th C post-Rome. It shows manufacturing was going on still in York at that time.
At Roxeter a large and well laid building has been unearthed and dated to around 520 AD. I know this is a bit after Rome departed but it`s still close enough in time to show society was organised and building big.
Then again. and this one I personally like, near Tintagel in Cornwall, lots of pottery has been found. It is wheel turned pottery, not like Roman type and not as was being made in Britain. Analysis shows it to have come from Southern Turkey..so there must still have been trade going on in this dark time.
Southampton University has been carrying out pollen studies for the time and it shows the majority of the land did not revert back to woodland in post Roman Britain. In fact cereal pollen shows the land was still being worked.
As you go on into the Dark Ages, think of the beautiful Anglo-Saxon jewellery being made.It took craftsmen to do that type of work. Even think of the rich finds of Sutton Hoo 620 AD.Anglo-Saxon law was in place with a view to keeping the land peaceful.

And viking art. Not everyone remembers the skill and craftsmanship of the vikings, I think. They made intricate and lovely pieces with as much gusto as they put into stealing it from others!
The Carolingians also. Now they had a taste for gold and they adorned their churches with it.The Palatine chapel at Aachen got under way 796.
Literature did not vanish. Some of the great annals started in those dark ages..Brut y Tywysogion begun around 620 Anglo-Saxon Chronicles late 9th century and the Lindasfarne Gospels right back in 700 AD. I don`t think even today there is much in that type that can match the Lindasfarne book, it`s magnificent and think of the skill to create that, especially under candle light. Not to forget the poems and of course Beowulf.
Monasteries and nunneries went up, where teaching was given. Fair enough it was mostly scholastic and perhaps for the better classes, but at least literacy was alive.
From the Islamic countries came Algebra and Astronomy. The Astrolabe was perfected here too in the early years of Islam. Ideas were exchanged between the Islamic world and the Christian world also I think, pre-Crusades.
Even when the vikings came and began settling, they brought new words into our language and new ideas on politics.
This all happened in what we call the Dark Ages but for the most part I feel intellectual life, politics, the arts continued. That`s some of the reasons I do not agree with the dark age view of the Western world after Rome and it was this I had in mind with my earlier post. .:smile:

hope
20-06-13, 03:34
Uhm LeeBrok, most Native Americans were farmers and not hunter-gatherers.


Really Templar? I thought it varied from tribe to tribe..some farmed and some were semi-nomadic.

LeBrok
20-06-13, 06:02
Certainly, and I agree with that for the most LeBrok, yes.

What I had in mind however when I said the medieval period was not so dark, was in the West, especially in Britain, after the withdrawal of Rome.
Most place the official Dark Ages from the 5th to15th C. We are lead to believe with the departure of Rome and the central power she gave, society collapsed. Learning and the arts ceased.It is this I have the problem with and it is mostly the Victorian archeologists I think are to blame for this view.
Archeology from the 1980s has shown a different side to that. For example, pottery found in East Yorkshire has been dated to 5th C post-Rome. It shows manufacturing was going on still in York at that time.
At Roxeter a large and well laid building has been unearthed and dated to around 520 AD. I know this is a bit after Rome departed but it`s still close enough in time to show society was organised and building big.
Then again. and this one I personally like, near Tintagel in Cornwall, lots of pottery has been found. It is wheel turned pottery, not like Roman type and not as was being made in Britain. Analysis shows it to have come from Southern Turkey..so there must still have been trade going on in this dark time.
Southampton University has been carrying out pollen studies for the time and it shows the majority of the land did not revert back to woodland in post Roman Britain. In fact cereal pollen shows the land was still being worked.
As you go on into the Dark Ages, think of the beautiful Anglo-Saxon jewellery being made.It took craftsmen to do that type of work. Even think of the rich finds of Sutton Hoo 620 AD.Anglo-Saxon law was in place with a view to keeping the land peaceful.

And viking art. Not everyone remembers the skill and craftsmanship of the vikings, I think. They made intricate and lovely pieces with as much gusto as they put into stealing it from others!
The Carolingians also. Now they had a taste for gold and they adorned their churches with it.The Palatine chapel at Aachen got under way 796.
Literature did not vanish. Some of the great annals started in those dark ages..Brut y Tywysogion begun around 620 Anglo-Saxon Chronicles late 9th century and the Lindasfarne Gospels right back in 700 AD. I don`t think even today there is much in that type that can match the Lindasfarne book, it`s magnificent and think of the skill to create that, especially under candle light. Not to forget the poems and of course Beowulf.
Monasteries and nunneries went up, where teaching was given. Fair enough it was mostly scholastic and perhaps for the better classes, but at least literacy was alive.
From the Islamic countries came Algebra and Astronomy. The Astrolabe was perfected here too in the early years of Islam. Ideas were exchanged between the Islamic world and the Christian world also I think, pre-Crusades.
Even when the vikings came and began settling, they brought new words into our language and new ideas on politics.
This all happened in what we call the Dark Ages but for the most part I feel intellectual life, politics, the arts continued. That`s some of the reasons I do not agree with the dark age view of the Western world after Rome and it was this I had in mind with my earlier post. .:smile:
You're right, the population didn't vanished in England, and life didn't change too much especially in villages. At that time 90% of population lived in villages, so not too many in cities. Due to climate cooling and smaller food production population shrank though, perhaps as much as 50 percent. In these circumstances, of smaller food production, biggest changes happened in cities. Cities always rely on surplus food production of farms. If farmers having hard time to produce for their own, they are not eager to share, therefore obviously it effects folks in cities the most. The cities being the centers for education, science and technology, and many more specialized trades. The collapse of the cities in particular caused the intellectual black out and very limited source of written language in this time period, thus dark ages. In villages though life didn't change much I suppose.

hope
20-06-13, 11:52
You're right, the population didn't vanished in England, and life didn't change too much especially in villages. At that time 90% of population lived in villages, so not too many in cities. Due to climate cooling and smaller food production population shrank though, perhaps as much as 50 percent. In these circumstances, of smaller food production, biggest changes happened in cities. Cities always rely on surplus food production of farms. If farmers having hard time to produce for their own, they are not eager to share, therefore obviously it effects folks in cities the most. The cities being the centers for education, science and technology, and many more specialized trades. The collapse of the cities in particular caused the intellectual black out and very limited source of written language in this time period, thus dark ages. In villages though life didn't change much I suppose.
Yes, they are fair points LeBrok.

To be honest regarding the build at Roxeter and the pottery at Tintagel [which was what caught my eye] I read about that not so long ago..it was a piece regarding a book or somesort that was either coming off or had come off the back of a television series I think. Perhaps if we unearthed a few more large builds like it, then it might be more significant.

As I said, I agree for the most with your original post. My point , as I say, is directed regarding this side of the post Roman world when, if you push the dust aside, to me at least, doesn`t look like life ceased or society collapsed . It may have been a smaller business but I don`t think it was carried on in darkness. :)

Templar
20-06-13, 12:53
Really Templar? I thought it varied from tribe to tribe..some farmed and some were semi-nomadic.

Of-course it varied, I was just pointing out that a larger share of the North American population was composed of farmers than hunter-gatherers. LeBrok used the fact that they were hunter-gatherers as one of the main reasons why Native Americans couldn't assimilate to European culture. I countered that by pointing out that the vast majority of them weren't hunter gatherers. I think the main cause of them being unable to assimilate well is due to their rapid population decline which resulted from exposure to diseases that they weren't used to. And many actually did assimilate and mix with other Americans, they were just quickly absorbed by the much larger incoming population.

hope
20-06-13, 14:32
Of-course it varied, I was just pointing out that a larger share of the North American population was composed of farmers than hunter-gatherers. LeBrok used the fact that they were hunter-gatherers as one of the main reasons why Native Americans couldn't assimilate to European culture. I countered that by pointing out that the vast majority of them weren't hunter gatherers. I think the main cause of them being unable to assimilate well is due to their rapid population decline which resulted from exposure to diseases that they weren't used to. And many actually did assimilate and mix with other Americans, they were just quickly absorbed by the much larger incoming population.

If I remember this correctly, there were four main ways Native Americans had of obtaining food. 1] Hunting ..2] Farming..3] Fishing.. and 4] Gathering.

Each of these require land to be carried out. So it is a bit hard to assimilate and maintain these traditional ways when your land is taken and you and yours are forced into reservations. To this degree I think the point LeBrok made is relevant.

Nobody1
20-06-13, 14:54
If I remember this correctly, there were four main ways Native Americans had of obtaining food. 1] Hunting ..2] Farming..3] Fishing.. and 4] Gathering.

Each of these require land to be carried out. So it is a bit hard to assimilate when your land is taken and you and yours are forced into reservations. To this degree I think the point LeBrok made is relevant.

Its a bit hard to assimilate if your not on the same evolutionary stage (technologically / culturally) as your opposite;

what does it even matter if the Natives knew how to farm when they were still stuck in a Neolithic setting (at best) whilst the Europeans and later the US Gov. were miles a head of them in Science and Engineering;
Modern Age vs Neolithic / Muskets vs Stone Hatchets / Medicine vs Shamanism etc. etc.

The Colonization of the New World can not be compared to the Expansion of the Roman Empire;

hope
20-06-13, 15:07
The Colonization of the New World can not be compared to the Expansion of the Roman Empire;


And where have I made such a comparison? My conversation with Templar was regarding something altogether different. A fraction of a conversation.

Templar
20-06-13, 15:10
If I remember this correctly, there were four main ways Native Americans had of obtaining food. 1] Hunting ..2] Farming..3] Fishing.. and 4] Gathering.

Each of these require land to be carried out. So it is a bit hard to assimilate and maintain these traditional ways when your land is taken and you and yours are forced into reservations. To this degree I think the point LeBrok made is relevant.

Agricultural societies tend to have MUCH larger populations than hunter-gatherers and nomads. It is obvious that those Native Americans who practiced agriculture would have consisted, by far,the largest share of the North American Native population.

nordicquarreler
20-06-13, 16:06
I recently saw a well-done video that mentioned farming techniques of the New World (but now I can't find it!) The narrator explained that the planting techniques used were so different than those found in Europe-- the Spanish didn't recognize that the "farm" land was being utilized when they initially explored it.

For example (I've read this in another book)... the Native Americans would make a mound of dirt, plant a few kernels of corn in the center, then put some vining vegetable seeds at the base. The vines would eventually grow up the corn stalks which would serve as vertical support structures.

Very smart if you don't have to grow enough food to feed large populations dwelling in a city.

LeBrok
20-06-13, 21:30
Uhm LeeBrok, most Native Americans were farmers and not hunter-gatherers. The entire eastern United States was composed of various farming tribe confederations. But you are Canadian so I guess your individual experiences have created the illusion that most Natives were were Inuit-style people. For example the mound building people around the Mississippi basin had a flourishing agricultural civilization which reached a population size comparable to that of many European countries at that time.

Of course depending on tribes and location there were degrees of farming natives in America conducted. For that reason you can see different degree of assimilation and adaptation to western culture, which comes from long, extensive farming.
The most agriculturalism happened in central America. It helped Spanish to build strong colonial powerhouses in preindustrial times, when most economy was based on farming of corn, sugar canes, potatoes or cotton. Actually all adopted by Spanish from Natives.
They've also invented their own alcohol and got used to it, therefore there was no crippling effect of alcohol when Spaniards came.
These are the most agricultural societies in pre colonial America, with extensive farming dating back to 2,000 BC.

If it comes to North America, definitely there was much less farming going on. Mostly due to very unpredictable climate, and extensive dry spells that kill all attempts in agriculture every few centuries or so. There was more sustainable farming by the coasts though, especially the East Coast of US and Canada. However this was very limited/early farming and didn't go beyond garden by the house. Women did farming while men were still hunting.
If it come to the prairie Indians and Inuits they were only hunter-gatherers. From my observation they are the ones with biggest difficulties adapting to western civilization, on par with Australian Aborigines, who also are pure hunter-gatherers. They didn't know alcohol and no time to "get used to" (by natural selection), which might be the biggest factor inducing native poverty at present time.

Templar
20-06-13, 21:46
"However this was very limited/early farming and didn't go beyond garden by the house. Women did farming while men were still hunting."

I have to disagree with you on that one. The mound builders of the Mississippi river basin are thought have had cities with several thousands of people living in them. Their agricultural feats must have been quite advanced in order to achieve such a thing.

Yetos
20-06-13, 22:22
http://www.history.com/shows/mankind-the-story-of-all-of-us/videos/corn

LeBrok
20-06-13, 23:52
"However this was very limited/early farming and didn't go beyond garden by the house. Women did farming while men were still hunting."

I have to disagree with you on that one. The mound builders of the Mississippi river basin are thought have had cities with several thousands of people living in them. Their agricultural feats must have been quite advanced in order to achieve such a thing.
As I mentioned before, there were various degrees of agriculture or lack of it, depending on location. Your example actually falls very nicely in my premise that intensive agriculture was unsustainable in North America, pretty much above Mexico.
The mound builders culture existed for fairly short time (500 years?) and completely vanished couple of centuries before white man showed up in the area.
Compare it to Europe with long, extensive farming and herding, and continuous from pretty much 5,000 BC, over whole continent.
In comparison in North America (beyond Mexico) extensive farming was sporadic and short lived, in wetter parts of continent only gardens by homes existed, herding was limited to turkey and duck, and on more than half continent you have only nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers (prairie Indians and Inuits). Plus alcohol was unknown.
I'm not blaming them, they did the best in condition and climate they came to live. Europe is a lucky place if it come to steady, warm and fairly wet weather. One of the best places to farm in the world.
I'm sure if the American Indians evolved in Europe and Europeans in America, the situation would be reversed. We would see white man in reserves not coping with alcohol well.

Gea
21-06-13, 23:28
I think people in the past had more time and their days were kind of longer.

I mean,when they were bored they were enriching their mind.Nowadays people are ironically more stupid because off too much informations.

Keegah
26-06-13, 15:26
As I mentioned before, there were various degrees of agriculture or lack of it, depending on location. Your example actually falls very nicely in my premise that intensive agriculture was unsustainable in North America, pretty much above Mexico.
The mound builders culture existed for fairly short time (500 years?) and completely vanished couple of centuries before white man showed up in the area.
Compare it to Europe with long, extensive farming and herding, and continuous from pretty much 5,000 BC, over whole continent.
In comparison in North America (beyond Mexico) extensive farming was sporadic and short lived, in wetter parts of continent only gardens by homes existed, herding was limited to turkey and duck, and on more than half continent you have only nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers (prairie Indians and Inuits). Plus alcohol was unknown.
I'm not blaming them, they did the best in condition and climate they came to live. Europe is a lucky place if it come to steady, warm and fairly wet weather. One of the best places to farm in the world.
I'm sure if the American Indians evolved in Europe and Europeans in America, the situation would be reversed. We would see white man in reserves not coping with alcohol well.

Ever read Guns, Germs and Steel?

LeBrok
26-06-13, 17:18
Ever read Guns, Germs and Steel? Nope, and it won't happen soon. Get to the point.

Keegah
26-06-13, 17:39
Not too friendly of a person, are you LeBrok. I was just curious because the author of that book puts forth an argument similar to the one you made, that the historical success of European nations in subjugating the indigenous populations of other continents, like Africa or North America, was due predominantly to the natural advantages bestowed on Europeans by Europe's favorable geography, climate, and natural resources. Going along this line of reasoning, the author basically traces the beginning of Europe's rise to the top to the early adoption of agriculture, which was only possible because of the favorable climate and geography. The book was partially written to argue against the ideas that European hegemony was and is due to the European gene pool, or anything inherent to the European peoples.

A similar proposition to the one that you made, so I was curious if you'd read the book. That's all.

LeBrok
27-06-13, 09:26
Not too friendly of a person, are you LeBrok. I was just curious because the author of that book puts forth an argument similar to the one you made, that the historical success of European nations in subjugating the indigenous populations of other continents, like Africa or North America, was due predominantly to the natural advantages bestowed on Europeans by Europe's favorable geography, climate, and natural resources. Going along this line of reasoning, the author basically traces the beginning of Europe's rise to the top to the early adoption of agriculture, which was only possible because of the favorable climate and geography. The book was partially written to argue against the ideas that European hegemony was and is due to the European gene pool, or anything inherent to the European peoples.

A similar proposition to the one that you made, so I was curious if you'd read the book. That's all.
Sorry for that, so much work recently and I'm even too tired to answer posts nicely. lol
I'm in agreement with that, although there will be genetic differences and predispositions to new agricultural lifestyle.
Overall, I believe the civilization progress, invention, education, science came from population density factor. More people (due to farming) preserve knowledge better that small tribes; increase population dencity and knowledge starts accumulating in exponential way. Recent fast scientific and economic progress of 20th century is in agreement with this observation. Population went from 1 billion to 6, and scientific progress is just crazy. It is hard to keep up.

Dianatomia
24-10-14, 23:47
I'm pretty sure the process was slow in scale of couple of thousands of years, with few bottlenecks to speed up the process, before we started seeing, big populations, building big cities, organized political systems, big variety of specialized trades, growing economies, monetary/exchange systems, and beginning of sciences.

I know it's not very scientific of me to say that, but I wonder sometimes how on scale of today's standardized IQ tests, smart they were on average. I think the bottom must be around 85 or 90, of early Egypt of Babylon and others from that time. I think it's hard to imposible to run a succesful country with population IQ lower than 80, at least for longer time.
I'm really at awe with ancient Greeks. They invented so many things or improved borrowed ideas intensively, and we are talking about populations of no more than one million people, probably less. It's much easier to be born into well running system and learn the ropes, but it's 10 times more difficult to invent and implement new things and ideas. How smart were the Greeks? 110? How about Romans at the height of their empire? I think the Phoenicians belonged to this (ancient hi-tech) group too. It would be interesting to know if average IQ in Europe fluctuated with centuries and if it was related to high and low points in European history.
If in future we'll be able to estimate IQ from genetic material we might find the answers to few mysteries.

IQ of Ancient Greeks would be closer to 80. Remember, all ancient peoples were far more primitive than the most modern nations today. Upon reading Ancient history closely you get to understand that most people in Ancient Greece were underdeveloped. To cite but a single example. When Themistocles wasn't able to convince the Athenians that they should build ships to fight the Persians, he used a tall beautiful girl from a village near Athens and portrayed as the Goddess AThena. He started the gossip that the Goddess was watching over the Athenians and would be with them against the Persians. Using this trick, Themostocles managed to shift the public opinion.

Now, take notice, this were the Athenians during the Golden Era of their history. Yet, the majority of the population was easily fooled by superstition. Surely, the Greeks had individuals among them which had a high IQ. Perhaps we should say that their basic reptilian brain was well evolved. But to suspect Greeks as a whole had an IQ of 110 is mostly based on the idealized image we have of them.

The most developed modern populations with good education, economy and nutrition in 2014 have an IQ of 106. Arguing that the Ancient Greeks as a whole had 110 on average is hilarious.

Angela
25-10-14, 00:43
IQ of Ancient Greeks would be closer to 80. Remember, all ancient peoples were far more primitive than the most modern nations today. Upon reading Ancient history closely you get to understand that most people in Ancient Greece were underdeveloped. To cite but a single example. When Themistocles wasn't able to convince the Athenians that they should build ships to fight the Persians, he used a tall beautiful girl from a village near Athens and portrayed as the Goddess AThena. He started the gossip that the Goddess was watching over the Athenians and would be with them against the Persians. Using this trick, Themostocles managed to shift the public opinion.

Now, take notice, this were the Athenians during the Golden Era of their history. Yet, the majority of the population was easily fooled by superstition. Surely, the Greeks had individuals among them which had a high IQ. Perhaps we should say that their basic reptilian brain was well evolved. But to suspect Greeks as a whole had an IQ of 110 is mostly based on the idealized image we have of them.

The most developed modern populations with good education, economy and nutrition in 2014 have an IQ of 106. Arguing that the Ancient Greeks as a whole had 110 on average is hilarious.

I don't see the logic in what you're saying at all. A big number of Jihadists are engineers, computer programmers, and doctors, and they believe if they die for the cause they're going to be rewarded with 70 virgins (Or is it 40? Whatever, it's certainly an excess.) Look up the educational background of the men who flew those planes into the World Trade Center.

Some incredible percentage of modern Americans believes that Martians with big heads and huge eyes come down and scoop people up for "experiments". Meanwhile, an even larger percentage doesn't know the name of their vice-president or the structure of their own government. Polls routinely have large percentages of people who when questioned about issues of the day say "they don't know". Maybe they're either stoned or playing video games all the time or maybe both. Oh, let's throw watching "The Bachelor" in there too.

Every day I meet even professional people, business school graduates, computer people, and yes, even engineers, who know nothing of the history or culture of western civilization.

These are all separate from how you score on an IQ test.

Dianatomia
25-10-14, 02:13
I don't see the logic in what you're saying at all. A big number of Jihadists are engineers, computer programmers, and doctors, and they believe if they die for the cause they're going to be rewarded with 70 virgins (Or is it 40? Whatever, it's certainly an excess.) Look up the educational background of the men who flew those planes into the World Trade Center.

Some incredible percentage of modern Americans believes that Martians with big heads and huge eyes come down and scoop people up for "experiments". Meanwhile, an even larger percentage doesn't know the name of their vice-president or the structure of their own government. Polls routinely have large percentages of people who when questioned about issues of the day say "they don't know". Maybe they're either stoned or playing video games all the time or maybe both. Oh, let's throw watching "The Bachelor" in there too.

Every day I meet even professional people, business school graduates, computer people, and yes, even engineers, who know nothing of the history or culture of western civilization.

These are all separate from how you score on an IQ test.

Understanding the nature of what goes through the brain of Jihadists or other fanatics of any kind is extremely complex. The example I gave was different. Yes, the great majority of Americans don't believe in evolution etc. And it is one thing that some people vaguely believe in Martians, but convincing the populace to engage in a war because a reincarnated Jesus walked through the streets to encourage the people would indicate a rather low average IQ in modern terms.

LeBrok
25-10-14, 05:27
IQ of Ancient Greeks would be closer to 80. Remember, all ancient peoples were far more primitive than the most modern nations today. I don't buy it. Not that Greeks, like Athenians or Spartans were overworked in fields and any physical work. There was at least one slave per citizen in ancient times. They had plenty of time for education, and they had the best schools and universities in the known world. When we take under consideration accomplishments of ancient greeks in sciences, art, political systems and military achievements, in population of one million people, it is hard to conclude that their IQ was lower than in modern populations.
In modern world HQ of 80 only happens in most impoverished countries with almost none existent education systems. Athenians were rich and educated.




Upon reading Ancient history closely you get to understand that most people in Ancient Greece were underdeveloped. To be fair lets skip farmers and slaves and talk about citizens of Athens and other big cities.


To cite but a single example. When Themistocles wasn't able to convince the Athenians that they should build ships to fight the Persians, he used a tall beautiful girl from a village near Athens and portrayed as the Goddess AThena. He started the gossip that the Goddess was watching over the Athenians and would be with them against the Persians. Using this trick, Themostocles managed to shift the public opinion. It is not much different when politicians address modern Greeks and have to convince them that fiscal responsibility is important. And yet modern Greeks IQ is around 100.


Now, take notice, this were the Athenians during the Golden Era of their history. Yet, the majority of the population was easily fooled by superstition. It is more about state of knowledge of the world than IQ per se.



Surely, the Greeks had individuals among them which had a high IQ. Perhaps we should say that their basic reptilian brain was well evolved. But to suspect Greeks as a whole had an IQ of 110 is mostly based on the idealized image we have of them. You are not giving them enough credit. To invent things from scratch it takes a genius. If average IQ of society is low, you won't get that many geniuses in short period of time from population of around one million. That's why I think, some populations in the past, for some reason, had high IQ. If it goes for the whole country, one tribe, or just elite, I don't know.


The most developed modern populations with good education, economy and nutrition in 2014 have an IQ of 106. Arguing that the Ancient Greeks as a whole had 110 on average is hilarious. They invented many things from scratch, enhanced and developed others inventions in many fields, and conquered the whole civilized world. All of this, you saying, with population of 1 million and IQ 80?
No offence, but modern Greeks with population of 10 million and IQ of 100 can't even come close to achievements of ancients. If anything, at least it should give you some perspective.

Aberdeen
25-10-14, 05:46
Anyone who thinks that the ancient Greeks weren't clever should do a bit of research about what they were able to do, for example by doing an internet search for "antikythena machine". Or learn what engineering skills were required for the building of the Parthenon. Or think about the fact that a Greek figured out 2500 years ago that the world was round with a circumference of about 25,000 miles. And don't get too excited about the supposed intelligence of people in the 21st century - some academics have argued that the average human IQ has declined since the Victorian Era.

Dianatomia
25-10-14, 13:32
I don't buy it. Not that Greeks, like Athenians or Spartans were overworked in fields and any physical work. There was at least one slave per citizen in ancient times. They had plenty of time for education, and they had the best schools and universities in the known world. When we take under consideration accomplishments of ancient greeks in sciences, art, political systems and military achievements, in population of one million people, it is hard to conclude that their IQ was lower than in modern populations.
In modern world HQ of 80 only happens in most impoverished countries with almost none existent education systems. Athenians were rich and educate


At least one slave per citizen. Very true. But since we are analyzing the IQ of Ancient Greeks we have to include Slaves. Slaves in Ancient Greece were Greeks as well. Usually survivors of another city-state which lost a war. The marbles of the Acropolis were mostly carved by slaves which had that skill set. Most Ancient Greeks were Slaves and illiterate peasants.

There were geniuses among them. Just as there are geniuses among any people today. Never argued against that. Populations today which score between 80 and 85 are Egyptians and Moroccans. That is the IQ of Ancient Greeks. Ancient Egyptians may have had an even lower IQ.


You are not giving them enough credit. To invent things from scratch it takes a genius. If average IQ of society is low, you won't get that many geniuses in short period of time from population of around one million. That's why I think, some populations in the past, for some reason, had high IQ. If it goes for the whole country, one tribe, or just elite, I don't know.


Ancient Greek population in classical times was between 8-10 million. 1/3 of the total European population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography)

LeBrok
25-10-14, 21:25
At least one slave per citizen. Very true. But since we are analyzing the IQ of Ancient Greeks we have to include Slaves. Slaves in Ancient Greece were Greeks as well. Usually survivors of another city-state which lost a war. The marbles of the Acropolis were mostly carved by slaves which had that skill set. Most Ancient Greeks were Slaves and illiterate peasants.

There were geniuses among them. Just as there are geniuses among any people today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography)
In this case we have to talk about highly educated and skillful elite of high IQ controlling the rest of population. Like in Athens, 60 thousand citizens overseeing half a million folks. Not only controlling but also inventing and developing the base elements of Western Civilization.
From the link above:

The city of Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens) in the 4th century BC had a population of 60,000 non-foreign free males.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]Including slaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaves), women, and foreign-born people, the number of people residing in the city state was probably in the range of 350,000 to 500,000 people,

Dianatomia
26-10-14, 13:43
In this case we have to talk about highly educated and skillful elite of high IQ controlling the rest of population. Like in Athens, 60 thousand citizens overseeing half a million folks. Not only controlling but also inventing and developing the base elements of Western Civilization.
From the link above:

As I told you, slaves in Ancient Greece were mostly Greeks, and 'Foreign born' people in Athens were mostly Greeks who were not born in Athens and as such were not Athenians and did not have a right to vote. They had substantial rights, but not as much as free citizens. They also fought in Wars and there were many monuments immortalizing slaves. Sometimes slaves got Athenian citizenship and received full rights.

If you are going to argue that we should only count the IQ of the elite group of free and most wealthy Athenians, then that would not be an objective measure of the IQ of Ancient Greeks, rather the IQ of the elite Athenians. In every society elites have higher IQ's than the average population. The IQ of Egyptians today is 80-85, but their elites could well have an IQ of over 100. Same is true for Ancient Greeks.
Thinking that the average IQ of Ancient Greece is 110 is a complete overstatement.

LeBrok
26-10-14, 20:45
As I told you, slaves in Ancient Greece were mostly Greeks, and 'Foreign born' people in Athens were mostly Greeks who were not born in Athens and as such were not Athenians and did not have a right to vote. They had substantial rights, but not as much as free citizens. They also fought in Wars and there were many monuments immortalizing slaves. Sometimes slaves got Athenian citizenship and received full rights.

If you are going to argue that we should only count the IQ of the elite group of free and most wealthy Athenians, then that would not be an objective measure of the IQ of Ancient Greeks, rather the IQ of the elite Athenians. In every society elites have higher IQ's than the average population. The IQ of Egyptians today is 80-85, but their elites could well have an IQ of over 100. Same is true for Ancient Greeks.
Thinking that the average IQ of Ancient Greece is 110 is a complete overstatement.
You are missing the point. Off course we can't objectively and precisely establish IQ of dead people, and it wasn't the main purpose of this thread. The main question is why some ancient people were smarter than others. If you don't want to compare the whole populations and their supposed IQ, and maybe rightfully so, based on your good points. We can compare achievements of elites who went to schools or not, took part in shaping nations politically, invented and figured out sciences, arts and theatres, built strongest economy of the region investing their wealth, etc. Why is it that ancient greeks dominated the region at this? Why were the ancient Greeks so skillful? Even nations with head start of thousand of years like Egyptians, Babylonians, Scythians, Indians, didn't achieve such heights but Greeks. All of this in a scale of 500 years since devastation of Bronze Age collapse, just with group of educated elite?

Phoenicians might have constituted similarly strong phenomenon. Interestingly their relatives Jews, survived fairly intact in their communities. Genetic studies tell us that their DNA is still strongly based in Near East and Greek population, with not much admixture from the rest of Europe. One can say that they carry an ancient Mediterranean DNA, which didn't mix much for last 2,000 years. We also know that Ashkenazi Jews have highest average IQ of all ethnic groups on Earth, around 112.
This might be our measuring stick of ancient populations.

arvistro
26-10-14, 22:06
Can you show me a link with modern population IQ estimates?
I found one list of top 10 countries where Euro-Germanic nations (+Italy) were rated 6th to 10th at ~102ish and Asian high techs took first 5 places 103-106.
This kind of feels intuitively correct, except I would put Finns somewhere in top 10 as well.

LeBrok
30-10-14, 22:15
Can you show me a link with modern population IQ estimates?
I found one list of top 10 countries where Euro-Germanic nations (+Italy) were rated 6th to 10th at ~102ish and Asian high techs took first 5 places 103-106.
This kind of feels intuitively correct, except I would put Finns somewhere in top 10 as well.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html Probably +/- 3 points for errors.

I'm thinking along these lines: If IQ between ethnicities varies today, it obviously varied even more in the past when populations and ethnicities were segregated and didn't mix fast or much. One can imagine that some groups got to the level of of well run, well fed city states, with well educated elite. The education, the nutrients could have boosted IQ well above others, giving technological, economic and military advantage, in return producing higher prosperity and boosting IQ even more.

When we look at the IQ per nation tables, we can see there is true correlation between income and IQ level. Nutrients, health and education definitely boosts IQ.

There is also obviously genetic factor, the nature, that gives us the base for our intelligence, the good memory, brain speed, brain architecture, which affects: imagination, pattern recognition, statistical thinking, concentration, etc.
Perhaps agricultural way of life boosted the base IQ and delivered first strong groups, cities, states and civilization in fertile crescent and Balkans. This is also true for Far East and American civilizations. They all grew on base of farming societies.

Dianatomia
03-11-14, 17:50
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/table1-smaller.gif

Angela
04-11-14, 18:44
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/table1-smaller.gif

This chart appears to be fatally flawed; no nation gains or loses 8 or so points in IQ in a seven or ten year period. The tests used must be different, with some of them tapping perhaps more into "aptitude" and some based on performance tests, which are, of course, highly influenced by the education system, and changes in it. That, or they are testing different areas of the same country.

The only accurate measures of IQ, in my opinion, are produced by tests like that developed by Weschsler, the WAIS-III version, in particular, that incorporate things like digit recollection, visual processing, processing speed etc., things which are less effected by differences in education systems and cultures.

LeBrok
15-03-15, 02:59
im not sure if we are smarter than them or not, but i do think that the ancient Egyptians and the Romans were much more materialistic than we are today
now that we have all our building conveniences we just build and create using small logic, but the ancient people had to find new ways to build massive architecture and create crucial inventions

my overall opinion is that the egyptians and romans were smarter than us...a lot of our inventions today came from their creations, but i dont think anybody knows for sure who is/was smarter haha :D


In general sense, as a global population, we are much smarter than ancient people all together. We have 500 million people with higher education and 20 million scientists, engineers and technologist inventing things.

Around year 0 whole world had probably 200 million people, that's 40 million adults (160 million kids), perhaps 10 thousand with some schooling degree. Collectively we are 2,000 times smarter than them.

Expredel
15-03-15, 04:44
Human brain size has decreased by 10-20% in the past 5000 years. Hard to find good sources on this as researchers no longer report on cranial capacity. Civilizations might collapse in the long run as they lower intelligence?

LeBrok
15-03-15, 05:05
Human brain size has decreased by 10-20% in the past 5000 years. Hard to find good sources on this as researchers no longer report on cranial capacity. Civilizations might collapse in the long run as they lower intelligence?

Maybe brain size decreased 10% during this time, but isn't it intriguing that during exactly this time we developed civilizations? Wouldn't it mean that we got smarter with brain shrinkage? Perhaps it is not size that maters but rather the architecture and complexity of our brain. Brains got more organized and became more efficient, therefore could shrink (saving energy and food) having same thinking power.

For example compare car engine from 70s to today's. Engine shrank in size, but are more powerful and more efficient. Typical evolution in action in both circumstances.

Expredel
15-03-15, 05:53
Wouldn't it mean that we got smarter with brain shrinkage?
No, bigger brains are better. The brain is like a toolbox, the more room there is to store a large variety of tools the better. The problem with civilization is that people only need a few tools to make a living, so they can get by with a small toolbox.

Not impossible that brains got more efficient, but a larger more efficient brain is still better at thinking, though not necessarily an evolutionary advantage.

Templar
15-03-15, 19:39
I think population explosion and an easy life leads to a dysgenic trend in the long run. The weaker and less intelligent people end up breeding while in previous times they would have just died off. Imagine how fit and intelligent you had to be survive in paleolithic Europe. And not surprisingly, Europeans back then had more robust bones, taller height, and bigger brains. Nowadays it is low IQ people who have the largest number of kids.

Melancon
15-03-15, 21:33
IQ tests are complete nonsense and are only a measure of intellectual capacity; not mental functioning. Having a high IQ doesn't measure intelligence; it only shows what a big nerd you are and how much useless information you've acquired. People who brag about having high IQs are usually just big geeks stroking their egos.

People in Africa will score low naturally due to poor development. And of course the mentally retarded.

Melancon
15-03-15, 21:38
I think population explosion and an easy life leads to a dysgenic trend in the long run. The weaker and less intelligent people end up breeding while in previous times they would have just died off. Imagine how fit and intelligent you had to be survive in paleolithic Europe. And not surprisingly, Europeans back then had more robust bones, taller height, and bigger brains. Nowadays it is low IQ people who have the largest number of kids.I am not sure I understand this assessment. It seems a bit discriminatory though. But I will let you and other people here judge for themselves.

skaheen15
16-03-15, 00:25
IQ tests are complete nonsense and are only a measure of intellectual capacity; not mental functioning. Having a high IQ doesn't measure intelligence; it only shows what a big nerd you are and how much useless information you've acquired. People who brag about having high IQs are usually just big geeks stroking their egos.

People in Africa will score low naturally due to poor development. And of course the mentally retarded.

I am not sure I understand this assessment. It seems a bit discriminatory though.

skaheen15
16-03-15, 00:28
No, bigger brains are better. The brain is like a toolbox, the more room there is to store a large variety of tools the better. The problem with civilization is that people only need a few tools to make a living, so they can get by with a small toolbox.

Not impossible that brains got more efficient, but a larger more efficient brain is still better at thinking, though not necessarily an evolutionary advantage.

I'm pretty sure that intelligence has more to do with the convolutions and structure of the brain, rather than plain size.

LeBrok
16-03-15, 00:36
I'm pretty sure that intelligence has more to do with the convolutions and structure of the brain, rather than plain size.
That's correct. If only size matters we would have heads the size of beer kegs. The bigger the better, right?

skaheen15
16-03-15, 00:40
That's correct. If only size matters we would have heads the size of beer kegs. The bigger the better, right?

We'd have disproportionately huge heads:laughing:
No, nothing in nature is so simple.

skaheen15
16-03-15, 00:55
I think population explosion and an easy life leads to a dysgenic trend in the long run.

I don't think there can be any doubt about that.

LeBrok
16-03-15, 00:56
I think population explosion and an easy life leads to a dysgenic trend in the long run. The weaker and less intelligent people end up breeding while in previous times they would have just died off. Imagine how fit and intelligent you had to be survive in paleolithic Europe. And not surprisingly, Europeans back then had more robust bones, taller height, and bigger brains. Nowadays it is low IQ people who have the largest number of kids.
Not really. Paleolithic HGs (like most hunter gatherers on earth) where as strong as the strength and intelligence of all the group. The HG group takes care of all the members and care of all their kids, like one big family. They hunted and gathered together sharing spoils equally regardless who was smarter, or a better hunter or not, and regardless who had more kids or none. In this situation there is no strong evolutionary forcing to reward intelligence of individual. These condition resemble our modern western society, more than farmers, kingdoms and feudalism did.

I think the final kick of intelligence, which started civilizations (including Greek and Rome) came from farmer's societies. Farmers are more individualistic and possessive. They have their own land, they work only for their immediate family, and never share everything with the whole village in equal sense of HGs societies. Accumulation of wealth by individual farmer is highly beneficial to his offspring. The more intelligent and more hard working the farmer is the better chance of survival of his children and propagation of farmer genetic traits. Conversely the poorest and not that smart in the farming village always died early and without offsprings. This creates a strong evolutionary trend towards intelligence.
This was a cruel and unjust world they lived in, and I'm not really fun of it, but it is possible that it strongly influenced our intelligence and hard repetitive working.

Mind you that there is no civilization started by hunter gatherers, but their are few started by farmers, and independently on all continents.

skaheen15
16-03-15, 01:02
Not really. Paleolithic HGs (like most hunter gatherers on earth) where as strong as the strength and intelligence of all the group. The HG group takes care of all the members and care of all their kids, like one big family. They hunted and gathered together sharing spoils equally regardless who was smarter, or a better hunter or not, and regardless who had more kids or none. In this situation there is no strong evolutionary forcing to reward intelligence of individual. These condition resemble our modern western society, more than farmers, kingdoms and feudalism did.

I think the final kick of intelligence, which started civilizations (including Greek and Rome) came from farmer's societies. Farmers are more individualistic and possessive. They have their own land, they work only for their immediate family, and never share everything with the whole village in equal sense of HGs societies. Accumulation of wealth by individual farmer is highly beneficial to his offspring. The more intelligent and more hard working the farmer is the better chance of survival of his children and propagation of farmer genetic traits. Conversely the poorest and not that smart in the farming village always died early and without offsprings. This creates a strong evolutionary trend towards intelligence.
This was a cruel and unjust world they lived in, and I'm not really fun of it, but it is possible that it strongly influenced our intelligence and hard repetitive working.

Mind you that there is no civilization started by hunter gatherers, but their are few started by farmers, and independently on all continents.

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think that Templar used Paleolithic HGs as an example because they're the furthest thing from what we are today, for all intents and purposes. Your point about farmers is certainly well taken.

LeBrok
16-03-15, 01:08
IQ tests are complete nonsense and are only a measure of intellectual capacity; not mental functioning. Do you care using your mental function and correct your statement?

People in Africa will score low naturally due to poor development. And of course the mentally retarded.[/QUOTE]
Sure, proper nutrition and brain stimulation also correlates and effects intelligence. On other hand genetic mutations or injuries make people retarded. One is an environmental factor the other mostly genetic. Regardless, I'm not sure how these two examples of yours make IQ test invalid?


Having a high IQ doesn't measure intelligence; it only shows what a big nerd you are and how much useless information you've acquired. People who brag about having high IQs are usually just big geeks stroking their egos. You are mixing memory with logical thinking. There are IQ tests based solely on pattern recognition without need of learning words or much at all.

LeBrok
16-03-15, 01:14
I don't mean to speak for him, but I think that Templar used Paleolithic HGs as an example because they're the furthest thing from what we are today. Yes, he used them as farthest in time to us, but surprisingly they might be a closer to us in many aspects of life, closer than farmers were. How we share and support our group members, equality, socialism.

Melancon
16-03-15, 02:52
Do you care using your mental function and correct your statement?

People in Africa will score low naturally due to poor development. And of course the mentally retarded.
Sure, proper nutrition and brain stimulation also correlates and effects intelligence. On other hand genetic mutations or injuries make people retarded. One is an environmental factor the other mostly genetic. Regardless, I'm not sure how these two examples of yours make IQ test invalid?

You are mixing memory with logical thinking. There are IQ tests based solely on pattern recognition without need of learning words or much at all.Uh, I actually meant it had more to do with the lack of development and education in countries such as Africa. Not biologically.

Do you care using your mental function and correct your statement?

There was nothing to correct- re-read my post. IQ tests have nothing to do with actual intelligence. They only measure levels of intellect and education. Hence, it explains why less developed and poor nations tend to score lower averages...

Melancon
16-03-15, 03:07
I am not sure I understand this assessment. It seems a bit discriminatory though.You're not mocking me; you're mocking yourself and your own hypocritical prejudices and tendencies. Read Templar's post again. It is nonsense to baseless accuse that I am discriminating against people; when that is exactly what he is doing, subconsciously...



There are smart and dumb people of all races.

"The weaker and less intelligent people end up breeding while in previous times they would have just died off. Imagine how fit and intelligent you had to be survive in paleolithic Europe. And not surprisingly, Europeans back then had more robust bones, taller height, and bigger brains. Nowadays it is low IQ people who have the largest number of kids."


Well then, if the Chinese had the largest number of kids this past century; that must make every other civilization flat out mentally-retarded, Templar. That whole paragraph read just now, did not make any logical sense to me at all.

Expredel
16-03-15, 05:17
There are smart and dumb people of all races.
There are tall and short people of all races as well, what are you trying to insinuate?

Melancon
16-03-15, 05:41
There are tall and short people of all races as well, what are you trying to insinuate?You completely missed the point.

Don't comment if you don't know what is being discussed.

LeBrok
16-03-15, 07:52
Uh, I actually meant it had more to do with the lack of development and education in countries such as Africa. Not biologically.

Do you care using your mental function and correct your statement?

There was nothing to correct- re-read my post. IQ tests have nothing to do with actual intelligence. They only measure levels of intellect and education. Hence, it explains why less developed and poor nations tend to score lower averages...
The last time I checked intellect is intelligence.

LeBrok
16-03-15, 08:05
You're not mocking me; you're mocking yourself and your own hypocritical prejudices and tendencies. Read Templar's post again. It is nonsense to baseless accuse that I am discriminating against people; when that is exactly what he is doing, subconsciously...



There are smart and dumb people of all races.

"The weaker and less intelligent people end up breeding while in previous times they would have just died off. Imagine how fit and intelligent you had to be survive in paleolithic Europe. And not surprisingly, Europeans back then had more robust bones, taller height, and bigger brains. Nowadays it is low IQ people who have the largest number of kids."


Well then, if the Chinese had the largest number of kids this past century; that must make every other civilization flat out mentally-retarded, Templar. That whole paragraph read just now, did not make any logical sense to me at all.
I think he means that in today's western countries educated and well off people tend to have one or two kids, though they could financially support more. On other hand there are disadvantaged and often not so smart people on social welfare system. They can't support themselves financially but still make many kids, because they can, who are also supported by government money, thus other's people money who pay taxes. Without this support of generous societies their kids would die of hunger. The way it used to be in the past. This cruel process might have been the evolutionary way to select people with better intelligence. Smart enough to start civilizations.

Maleth
16-03-15, 12:11
Maybe brain size decreased 10% during this time, but isn't it intriguing that during exactly this time we developed civilizations? Wouldn't it mean that we got smarter with brain shrinkage? Perhaps it is not size that maters but rather the architecture and complexity of our brain. Brains got more organized and became more efficient, therefore could shrink (saving energy and food) having same thinking power.

For example compare car engine from 70s to today's. Engine shrank in size, but are more powerful and more efficient. Typical evolution in action in both circumstances.

Here is another good example:-

First computer 7144


thousands of times more efficient then first computer :- 7145

Expredel
16-03-15, 13:30
Here is another good example:-

First computer 7144


thousands of times more efficient then first computer :- 7145

Our ancestors had bigger muscles, so does that mean we are stronger now? I had never considered that, but it makes a lot of sense now.

Templar
16-03-15, 13:57
I think he means that in today's western countries educated and well off people tend to have one or two kids, though they could financially support more. On other hand there are disadvantaged and often not so smart people on social welfare system. They can't support themselves financially but still make many kids, because they can, who are also supported by government money, thus other's people money who pay taxes. Without this support of generous societies their kids would die of hunger. The way it used to be in the past. This cruel process might have been the evolutionary way to select people with better intelligence. Smart enough to start civilizations.

Yup. Another depressing thing happening is the fact that atheist families tend to have much lower fertility rates than religious ones. Which seems to be the main reason why religion keeps on surviving. And of course there is a positive correlation between IQ and secularism.

Maleth
16-03-15, 15:13
Our ancestors had bigger muscles, so does that mean we are stronger now? I had never considered that, but it makes a lot of sense now.

It depends on the physical work necessary to keep oneself fed and protected from the environment. Generally speaking today we need much less muscle to achieve much more (excluding the gym crazed that grow muscles for other reasons :)). We also have to remember that elephants and whales have bigger brains then humans but did not achieve a fraction of what humans did (so far)

LeBrok
16-03-15, 18:13
We also have to remember that elephants and whales have bigger brains then humans but did not achieve a fraction of what humans did (so far)
That I didn't know, I thought only dolphins have bigger brains than humans. Aparently, whale's brain weighs 8 kg, elephant's 5 kg.

Melancon
16-03-15, 18:30
The last time I checked intellect is intelligence.Well, that's the problem there...we don't really know how to clearly define intelligence in a concrete sense, do we? Dogs and cats and animals in general, have their own level of intelligence; but they cannot learn things like humans can. Like intellectual facts. Because their mental biology is different than humans. In example; a mentally retarded person could still learn things that a dog or cat wouldn't be able to; but the dog and cat would still show a high degree of intelligence for their species.

I do not believe IQ tests measure these differences; they only measure the required information that people must know. To me, IQ tests seem like silly pseudoscience (most of them) and are often mythological and contradictory. What is funny is that people say the Jewish tend to score above average on IQ tests; but right here in this image their IQ tests are slightly below, at 90 and 97:



7146

Ashkenazi Jews are smarter:

http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/why-is-the-iq-of-ashkenazi-jews-so-high

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/index1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

Melancon
16-03-15, 18:48
Yup. Another depressing thing happening is the fact that atheist families tend to have much lower fertility rates than religious ones. Which seems to be the main reason why religion keeps on surviving. And of course there is a positive correlation between IQ and secularism.I just wanted to point out that it seems you are already having formed an opinion/agenda on this subject.

I am not religious but I am also not a secularist myself. If you want a broader perspective, you must look at things from a neutral point of view; from all sides and angles.

Simply lacking a belief in God does not make an individual more intelligent. It is a learned thing; just like the literal belief in God is a learned thing. Even your own name that your parents give you, is a learned thing.

If a person is high-functioning they have the ability to change their beliefs. Whether or not they are Atheist or Religious, and if they are willing to act out on it- this is called fluid intelligence. There have been many great philosophers who were religious; like Soren Kierkegaard who was a Christian existentialist. I tend to score extremely high on fluids. From what I can detect in this post; many people here are not using their fluid intelligence.

Definition of Fluid intelligence:

"Fluid intelligence is the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge. Fluid intelligence involves the ability to identify patterns and relationships that underpin novel problems and to extrapolate these findings using logic."


The reason that people who are religious score lower in IQ tests is not because they are lower functioning (mentally) than the Atheists; it is because they are trained to think by their Religion in a way that is not as intellectual like these supposed Secularists. In a way, this explains why they tend to score lower on the IQ tests. Because the IQ test is designed to reward intellect and knowledge; which Secularists tend to have a greater advantage in.

Melancon
16-03-15, 19:23
The last time I checked intellect is intelligence.Last time I checked intellect is a man-made word. And the IQ test is a man-made institution. So, by your logic; whoever created the IQ test must be the most intelligent person who ever existed and a genius, right? Since people take faith in such an outdated contraption.

So, how can someone of average intelligence create the IQ test? Or were they a genius? Were they God? How can they determine "intelligence"?

LeBrok
17-03-15, 02:28
Well, that's the problem there...we don't really know how to clearly define intelligence in a concrete sense, do we? Dogs and cats and animals in general, have their own level of intelligence; but they cannot learn things like humans can. Like intellectual facts. Because their mental biology is different than humans. In example; a mentally retarded person could still learn things that a dog or cat wouldn't be able to; but the dog and cat would still show a high degree of intelligence for their species. Don't confuse memory with intelligence. Memory is used by intelligence to recall facts, but intelligence is analysing facts from memory, making connections, recognising patterns, calculating the best action to take, making decisions, avoiding danger, taking chances, calculating probabilities, understanding physical and mathematical equations, things like these. We know exactly what intelligence is, the difficult part is to quantatise it for statistical comparable purposes.

Melancon
17-03-15, 02:44
Don't confuse memory with intelligence. Memory is used by intelligence to recall facts, but intelligence is analysing facts from memory, making connections, recognising patterns, calculating the best action to take, making decisions, avoiding danger, taking chances, calculating probabilities, understanding physical and mathematical equations, things like these. We know exactly what intelligence is, the difficult part is to quantatise it for statistical comparable purposes.Memory comes before intelligence. Have their ever been people with amnesia who have always scored at the genius level on the same tests?

Melancon
17-03-15, 02:46
Memory comes before intelligence. Have their ever been people with amnesia who have always scored at the genius level on the same tests?

I read an article recently about a Spanish F1 racer who crashed in Barcelona and woke up in 1995; having the mind of a teenager. Forgot the past 20 years apparently. I don't know his name. But I think he was Asturian?

Melancon
17-03-15, 02:47
Don't confuse memory with intelligence. Memory is used by intelligence to recall facts, but intelligence is analysing facts from memory, making connections, recognising patterns, calculating the best action to take, making decisions, avoiding danger, taking chances, calculating probabilities, understanding physical and mathematical equations, things like these. We know exactly what intelligence is, the difficult part is to quantatise it for statistical comparable purposes.
I read an article recently about a Spanish F1 racer who crashed in Barcelona and woke up in 1995; having the mind of a teenager. Forgot the past 20 years apparently. I don't know his name. But I think he was Asturian?

LeBrok
17-03-15, 02:49
Last time I checked intellect is a man-made word. I'm not sure where are you going with this, because all the words are men made. You just need to remember to use them with correct (generally accepted) meaning, otherwise we won't understand each other.


And the IQ test is a man-made institution. I see, that this is exactly what I mentioned above. You don't use the standard meanings, standard definitions. The test is not an institution. A group of people who control and standardize IQ test is an institution. Secondly, from when all man made things must be wrong? Just because it is manmade it doesn't mean it is useless and wrong. Car, table, computer, a movie, capitalism, are all man made, and they work fine.



So, by your logic; whoever created the IQ test must be the most intelligent person who ever existed and a genius, right? Since people take faith in such an outdated contraption. Today's IQ tests and many derivatives of it are created by many smart people in many countries. The person who invented it was obviously very smart too. However, it beats me why do you think it would needed to be the smartest of us all.


So, how can someone of average intelligence create the IQ test? Or were they a genius? Were they God? How can they determine "intelligence"? I'm sure that you don't use same definition of intelligence as the rest of us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), abstract thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction), understanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding), self-awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication), learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning), emotional knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_knowledge), memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory), planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan), creativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity) and problem solving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving). It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceive) and/or retain knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) or information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information) and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious) orsubconscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious) imposed will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)) or instruction to do so.

LeBrok
17-03-15, 02:58
Memory comes before intelligence. Have their ever been people with amnesia who have always scored at the genius level on the same tests? Yes, memory is essential for intelligence to work on, but it is not intelligence per se. Good memory obviously helps a lot and give intelligence lots of material to work on, it gives it a boost. Conversely, when memory is lost, intelligence doesn't have information to work on and stops working too.
Look at the computer inner working. There is a processor and there is a memory, two very distinct parts and having different functions. Yet, you need these two working together to unleash the processing/thinking power of computer.

Melancon
17-03-15, 03:12
Yes, memory is essential for intelligence to work on, but it is not intelligence per se. Good memory obviously helps a lot and give intelligence lots of material to work on, it gives it a boost. Conversely, when memory is lost, intelligence doesn't have information to work on and stops working too.
Look at the computer inner working. There is a processor and there is a memory, two very distinct parts and having different functions. Yet, you need these two working together to unleash the processing/thinking power of computer.That doesn't really refute what I believe. In fact you are only confirming to me that I am correct; as far as I know.

Expredel
17-03-15, 05:06
It depends on the physical work necessary to keep oneself fed and protected from the environment. Generally speaking today we need much less muscle to achieve much more (excluding the gym crazed that grow muscles for other reasons :)). We also have to remember that elephants and whales have bigger brains then humans but did not achieve a fraction of what humans did (so far)
So smaller brains means we've gotten more intelligent, yet smaller muscles means we've gotten weaker? I'm just trying to find some internal consistency in what people are writing here.

Large bodies require larger brains to control, but I'm not aware of a solid formula to calculate a person's excess brain capacity. Elephant are likely the most intelligent species after humans though.

Melancon
17-03-15, 05:55
Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), abstract thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction), understanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding), self-awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication), learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning), emotional knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_knowledge), memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory), planning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan), creativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity) and problem solving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving). It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceive) and/or retain knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) or information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information) and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious) or subconscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious) imposed will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy)) or instruction to do so.LOL well you already admitted that you don't understand a clue of what I am talking about. So clearly you lack some form of intelligence yourself; judging by that definition. LeBrok, this is disappointing to me.

You think IQ tests measure biological intelligence; not acquired intelligence. When in reality, it mainly measures the latter and not much the former. From what I am detecting already, you lack what is called fluid intelligence. I have high fluid intelligence because I read a lot of Philosophy; especially Existentialism.

LeBrok
17-03-15, 06:49
You think IQ tests measure biological intelligence; not acquired intelligence.
Cite me saying that.

Melancon
18-03-15, 11:05
Cite me saying that.Come on; don't lie to yourself. You mentioned it several times.

Even if you are wrong, what does it matter? IQ tests don't really tell you much about intelligence. While it may be true that intelligence is genetic/biological; the true strength in mastering IQ tests is intellectual knowledge.

For example; just because Bosnians have an average IQ score of 89 doesn't make them any more stupid. And sometimes they often come out with contradictory scores; in between two distinct tests. This is why I think most IQ tests are nonsense. Their below average IQ is likely more correlated with a lack of education and development in their country/community.

People don't believe in God; for the simple reason that they are told there is an invisible man in the sky. They believe in God because it brings them a sense of security.

Templar
18-03-15, 12:59
For example; just because Bosnians have an average IQ score of 89 doesn't make them any more stupid. And sometimes they often come out with contradictory scores; in between two distinct tests. This is why I think most IQ tests are nonsense. Their below average IQ is likely more correlated with a lack of education and development in their country/community.



lol at this bait

Melancon
18-03-15, 13:17
lol at this baitIt's not bait; it's something you should consider.

LeBrok
18-03-15, 19:13
Come on; don't lie to yourself. You mentioned it several times. The easier it is to find, so cite me. Otherwise you look like a liar, not me.


Even if you are wrong, what does it matter? IQ tests don't really tell you much about intelligence. While it may be true that intelligence is genetic/biological; the true strength in mastering IQ tests is intellectual knowledge.

For example; just because Bosnians have an average IQ score of 89 doesn't make them any more stupid. And sometimes they often come out with contradictory scores; in between two distinct tests. This is why I think most IQ tests are nonsense. Their below average IQ is likely more correlated with a lack of education and development in their country/community. I have a feeling that your score was low on IQ test. You are working hard to discredit it then.


People don't believe in God; for the simple reason that they are told there is an invisible man in the sky. They believe in God because it brings them a sense of security. This can explain some cases, but not all. There are people who believe in UFO, others believe in demons. Sense of security can't explain these phenomenon, therefore there got to be something more to it.

Melancon
18-03-15, 20:58
The easier it is to find, so cite me. Otherwise you look like a liar, not me.






There is also obviously genetic factor, the nature, that gives us the base for our intelligence, the good memory, brain speed, brain architecture, which affects: imagination, pattern recognition, statistical thinking, concentration, etc.



I have a feeling that your score was low on IQ test. You are working hard to discredit it then. No ... that's a really juvenile argument. lol !

I have actually taken 3 official tests in my life time; and I have scored as low as 86 on one of them. But on the other two tests I have scored above average at 117 and even scored 146 before, which I believe is well above average, almost genius level. I don't believe that they are an effective measure of intelligence at all.

LeBrok
19-03-15, 03:20
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Melancon http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=452438#post452438)
You think IQ tests measure biological intelligence; not acquired intelligence.



http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by LeBrokhttp://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=443161#post443161)There is also obviously genetic factor, the nature, that gives us the base for our intelligence, the good memory, brain speed, brain architecture, which affects: imagination, pattern recognition, statistical thinking, concentration, etc..

Do you know what BASE means? Perhaps you're using your definition of BASE, which means ALL intelligence.

You were supposed to cite me saying that there is no environmental/natured/acquired intelligence.

Melancon
19-03-15, 04:35
Do you know what BASE means? Perhaps you're using your definition of BASE, which means ALL intelligence.

You were supposed to cite me saying that there is no environmental/natured/acquired intelligence.Well then you are right on that part. But it still does not explain my point: IQ tests are often unreliable and fluctuate; and are not an accurate indicator of intelligence.


I don't believe there is any correlation with intelligence and believing in religion. It matters not if you are religious like a Christian or Muslim; or even an Atheist. There is no difference. The explanation for why people whom are Religious score lower on IQ tests; is because they are brought up to think a certain way. Not in the same way as a secular student for example; who may obviously be more intellectual and study intellectual matters. I know this topic was discussed in another thread posted by Maciamo; but I feel I had to give my own analysis/explanation for that, here.

Of course there are mentally retarded people who score very low. They are not high functioning humans so they have a harder time accumulating intellect.

A Bosnian Muslim or an Orthodox Serb or an Atheist person can be as intelligent/high functioning as everyone else. It only means that one of the three peoples' beliefs are right.

I have even seen many documentaries of Autistic children who have scored below average intelligence; but have impressive abilities such as excelling in Mathematics or painting highly detailed pictures.

Most of this all goes back to Psychoanalysis; which was the precursor to Psychology. Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche or Sigmund Freud tried to determine the ultimate driving force behind human beings and human nature. Personally I am more in accord with Nietzsche's views of psychoanalysis; rather than Freud's. But Modern psychology takes from Sigmund Freud.

Aberdeen
19-03-15, 05:28
No ... that's a really juvenile argument. lol !

I have actually taken 3 official tests in my life time; and I have scored as low as 86 on one of them. But on the other two tests I have scored above average at 117 and even scored 146 before, which I believe is well above average, almost genius level. I don't believe that they are an effective measure of intelligence at all.

I think it's highly unlikely that you would have such a huge variation if you took one of the IQ tests used by psychologists (Standard Binet, Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, etc) three different times unless there was some significant intervening event such as a brain injury between tests. Of course there are "IQ tests" you can take online that are very unreliable, which could explain such a variance. Valid IQ tests that are properly administered by psychologists are a very reliable way to measure intelligence (although they aren't intended to measure other things, such as physical skills or ability to read social cues).

Melancon
19-03-15, 05:36
I think it's highly unlikely that you would have such a huge variation if you took one of the IQ tests used by psychologists (Standard Binet, Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, etc) three different times unless there was some significant intervening event such as a brain injury between tests. Of course there are "IQ tests" you can take online that are very unreliable, which could explain such a variance. Valid IQ tests that are properly administered by psychologists are a very reliable way to measure intelligence (although they aren't intended to measure other things, such as physical skills or ability to read social cues).Taken them in school twice; and then at a Psychologist.

Aberdeen
19-03-15, 06:01
.....................


Most of this all goes back to Psychoanalysis; which was the precursor to Psychology. Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche or Sigmund Freud tried to determine the ultimate driving force behind human beings and human nature. Personally I am more in accord with Nietzsche's views of psychoanalysis; rather than Freud's. But Modern psychology takes from Sigmund Freud.

No. Modern psychology has existed as a scholarly discipline in Europe since the 17th century. Freud was influenced by Nietzche and Schopenhaur but he was not a philosopher. He was a medical doctor who was interested in applying psychological methods to the subconscious. And Nietzche died in 1900 before Freud became well known and before the term "psychoanalysis" came into vogue.

giuseppe rossi
19-03-15, 12:13
Religious people are often poor people, hence religious people have a lower mean IQ.

Jews are an exception.

Melancon
19-03-15, 12:20
No. Modern psychology has existed as a scholarly discipline in Europe since the 17th century. Freud was influenced by Nietzche and Schopenhaur but he was not a philosopher. He was a medical doctor who was interested in applying psychological methods to the subconscious. And Nietzche died in 1900 before Freud became well known and before the term "psychoanalysis" came into vogue.I'm not talking about the 17th century here ... I'm talking about the 20th and 21st centuries.

Maleth
19-03-15, 13:00
Religious people are often poor people, hence religious people have a lower mean IQ.

Jews are an exception.

Most Jews I came across were very secular, I think ultra nationalists are vociferous but a small minority. There are different grades of religiousness like in any religion. As an atheist I am free to think that religion is only about some kind of psyche conveniently approved by a higher supernatural authority for a conscious / subconscious reason to drive a particular political motive

Aberdeen
19-03-15, 16:12
I'm not talking about the 17th century here ... I'm talking about the 20th and 21st centuries.

I was pointing out that you are incorrect in saying that modern psychology is an outgrowth of psychoanalysis and that it "takes from" psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is an outgrowth of psychology. Most psychologists are either very dubious of psychoanalysis or are inclined to use Jungian rather than Freudian ideas. Freudianism has faded in popularity because many people in the mental health field don't think it's useful and see Freud's main importance as being the precursor of Carl Jung. Oddly enough, some psychiatrists do use the Freudian method to help mentally ill people deal with emotional problems that are triggers for their mental illness or that result from mental illness. But most psychologists think psychiatrists should stick to psychiatry and leave psychology to psychologists.

LeBrok
21-03-15, 22:06
Most Jews I came across were very secular, I think ultra nationalists are vociferous but a small minority. There are different grades of religiousness like in any religion. As an atheist I am free to think that religion is only about some kind of psyche conveniently approved by a higher supernatural authority for a conscious / subconscious reason to drive a particular political motive
I think most of them are secular. The reason we see mostly the religious Jews because their dress traditionally and they stand out in the crowd. Most secular Jews can't be recognized in public. They dress and behave like any other ordinary citizen.

individual1st
22-03-15, 02:07
Absolutely Ionia.

Angela
13-04-16, 18:15
The article is from Archaeology Magazine:
http://www.archaeology.org/news/4373-160412-israel-ostraca-literacy

"TEL AVIV, ISRAEL—Israel Finkelstein, Arie Shaus, and Shira Faigenbaum-Golovin of Tel Aviv University used computer programs to scan and analyze the handwriting on 16 ostracons dating to the seventh century B.C. All of the inscriptions were unearthed at the site of Arad, a frontier fort, and had been made within a span of a few months. The analysis suggests that at least six different people, ranging in rank from the commander of the fort down to the deputy quartermaster, had written these texts. All of the writers used proper spelling and syntax. Similar ostracons have been found at other border forts, suggesting that writing was widespread, at least within the Judahite army. Finkelstein thinks the ancient kingdom of Judah may have had an educational system, since literacy was not limited to the elite. “This is really quite amazing, that in a remote place like this, there was more than one person, several people, who could write,” he told Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/54368-bible-compiled-early.html). Finkelstein also claims that if literacy were widespread at the time, it would support the idea that portions of the Bible could have been compiled before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. "

Everything I was taught did indeed posit that the oldest parts of the Bible, Deuteronomy etc. were written in Babylon. The idea that parts of it could have been written before the exile in Jerusalem itself was the decidedly minority view. I'm not sure these results are proof that happened, but it is indeed another part of the puzzle.

See:
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/1.713885

Sakattack
21-05-16, 05:57
Hello everybody!

.....

LeBrok
21-05-16, 21:04
Hello everybody!

I've found out the existence of a community like this couple of weeks ago and was browsing though the different threads and topics. Very interesting indeed! I am no linguist, neither genecist or scientist, just a history/science/languages "lover" with a recent interest on genetics. Welcome to Eupedia Sakattack.


I don't know how common is to dig out topics and add anything to discussions that look "closed", but I wanted to share something concerning the "smartness" of the Ancient Greeks, which I find that can make some sense. BTW, is my first post, hope that you will find it interesting. :)

A high school teacher, philologue himself, Panagiotis Mitropetros, with some descent research and publishing, states the following:

"All the ancient pre-Greek civilizations (such as Egyptians, Babylonians, Hettites, Sumerians etc) had a vast amount of empirical knowledge and of course high levels of - what we call - IQ. What actually detered them of reaching the high standards of the - subsequant - Greeks, was the lack of definition, generalisation, rule and norm of those huge amount of info in order to achieve the transition from the empirical to theoretical; to create models and patterns. This is actually the difference between science and the simple gathering of knowledge.

This took place in the beginning of the 6th cetury BC, at the shores of the Greek colonies (Magna Grecia, shores of Macedonia, East Aegean Islands and Asia Minor) is consired as big step forward and eventually marks the 1st Scientific Revolution*.

All these cool Presocratic guys (Leucippus, Democritus, Thales, Empedocles etc) took advantage of some social and political conditions of their places and times in order to find themselves in this revolution. In terms of politics, these conditions where not ideal during the era of the Pharaos for example or under a powerful King; our guys needed some freedom to express themselves, to question stuff and to develop their findings. That's why place matters and all these great ideas started evolving at the circumferences of the Greek world and not in the metrοpolises of that time, because even if Athens, Sparta or Thebes were not under the rule of an Emperor, let's say, they had strong aristocracy who would not welcome any new or radical idea. But in Clazomenea, in Ephesus, in Miletus, in Abdera, in Crotone, in Taranto etc people were enjoying a much tolerant regime and could formulate easier heretic opinions and challenge the 'authorities', by the evidential procedure that they were following.

Therefore, this huge bomb exploded there, at that time, (societies where some how ready and the knowledge was adequate enough, even some centuries ago, also among people from other civilazations as mentioned above) and not anywhere else in the Ancient World.

So, till know, we have:

1. Knowledge
2. Ideal political and social enviroment
3. Evidentian procedure

But were these enough for the bomb to explode? Looks like we need some other stuff, and these had been found in language.

Briefly:

1. The article.

In Homer for instance, we don't find articles. He just sees and points. This "invention", is very crucial in order to develop critical thinking, because it gives you the ability to think of something (whatever that is) which is not present. Whidthens your mind.

2. The creation of the abstract nouns.

Those Presocratic cool kids where the first to use terms such as "vision, braveness, justice". Till then, we could say that someone is brave but not that he possesses braveness. These nouns were just not there and their invention is also a great thing, even though it does not sounds so.

3. Ratio.

It does not sound as a language thing, but in fact it is. A book can be bigger than another one. This was known. But there was no word for a double-sized one. When these linguistic terms had been defined, the whole scientific and pneumatic procedure went many steps further. Even the reasoning and the cogitations of Aristotle let's say, have their roots on that linguistic invention. Anaximander, thanks bro!"

Well, I am completely fond of his opinions.

So there was not only a matter of how smart they were. They took advantage of these political and social situations and were free to practice whatever they had in their - smart enough - mind. One thing lead to another, Socrates, Aristotle etc followed the path and here we are now.



* Accorind to him, the 2nd Scientific Revolution was actually the Industrial one (more precise the knowledge created in order to get there) and the 3rd happened in the end of the 19th and the 20th century, with Einstein (ToR) but also later with the Quantum Theory and the Theory of Chaos.Very interesting. He sees the civilisational progress as a form of strict organized systems, and sees these systems as essential to the progress. This compartmentalization and organization being the driving force of free thinking, invention and creation.
I agree that having well defined educational and political systems is best vehicle to achieve fast progress, or at least faster progress than the others have. However, I'm not sure if these "well oiled" systems are so essential to existence the basic skills of creativity, logic, science, technology, etc. The wheel, pot or a metal knife was invented and widely implemented without the help of any social or political system. Though systems might be essential for public acceptance of new radical ideas and producing ideas in volumes, like a good education system and inspiring teachers would.

In my mind all this ancient Greek success was more "organic" and evolutionary than sudden success of good systems. First of all Panagiotis ignores most important factor of their success, the good economy. The issue on time in modern Greece, I would say. Good economy stands behind full bellies of citizens, therefore people being in better mood, open mind and tolerant, and fewer revolts and sensless killings. Likewise good economy produces better health, fewer mortality of kids, therefore fast growing populations, more hands to work, and heads to invent, create, learn and teach. Important, because knowledge has strong cumulative effect. There are plenty of examples from the past and not only for Greece, of economic well being dictating creativity, progress and prosperity, .
Greek and later Roman prosperity starts right after Bronze Age Collapse/Dark Ages. Just recently we learned that there was sharp global cooling for few decades leading to Bronze Age Collapse. Let's keep in mind that ancient economy was based mainly in agriculture. 80-90% people worked on farms. When food production was cut in half due to colder or drier weather and many people died, especially in Cities. Mind you that the cities harbored schools, teachers, philosophers, actors, and many vital trades. City was gone and so was most of accumulated knowledge.
In Medieval times we had another episode of cooling, failed crops, leading to Dark Ages and lost of knowledge. In warmer Middle Ages we see growing prosperity in Europe culminating in Renaissance. Knowledge flourishes, beautiful grandiose projects were built, and humanity comes to forefront of education with new radical ideas. This process is somewhat halted by little Ice Age of 17-18 century, though we are saved from another dark ages this time (Why, could be a good subject for future discussion). 20th century (warming trend) brings the biggest prosperity for all, at least in Western World. This new prosperity brings good paying jobs to all men and women, collapse of old empires, democratisation, liberalization, technical and scientific revolution, tolerant societies and many radical ideas in many fields.
Summarizing, I really believe, that economy is the base for our social, educational and even political success. Without good economy, or economy at all, our life collapses to pretty much a cave or dirt house settings and end of civilization. Of course the other social systems are important too, giving the effect of feedback loop to economy for betterment of all.

RobertColumbia
27-07-16, 17:43
...The main reason Europe fell unto the Dark Ages is Christianity. The Dark Ages didn't start after the fall of the Roman Empire, but in the 4th century when Christianity became the state religion. The Byzantines remained independent for a thousand years after the fall of Rome, but were just a bleak shadow of the pre-Christian Roman Empire.

Christianity made people wait for a better after-life paradise instead of trying to improve society. It strongly discouraged sciences, innovations and any philosophical questioning of how Nature works....It was like a virus taking over a healthy body and turning it into a zombie.

Europe managed to extricate itself from the grip of the Church little by little from the 15th to the 18th century. Once educated people stopped being Christian a new era of progress was born, known as the Enlightenment....

People have been smart for thousands of years. It's just that they are not always free to use their potential because of oppressive religions. The two most intellectually oppressive religions in history are Christianity and Islam.

To be clear, I think the major issue wasn't religion (or even Christianity) per se, but organized, state-sponsored religion in which dissident thought was discouraged. There have been plenty of great scientists and other thinkers who were strong believers. Isaac Newton is one of the famous ones. His beliefs may have been slightly less orthodox than the powers might be might have wanted, but he was clearly no atheist or even an agnostic. In fact, half of his research (the half other than his groundbreaking math and physics research) is Biblical hermeneutics and occultic research. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, claims to be a believer in a god, so at most he could be described as unorthodox or a heretic (if that) and certainly not as someone who was trying to push an atheistic world view.

We should also consider the great contributions of Muslim mathematicians to our body of knowledge. Many of our most important mathematical concepts like algebra (al-jabr) come from an Islamic milieu.

I'm not trying to claim that religion is necessary for science - there are plenty of non-believing scientists like Stephen Hawking.