PDA

View Full Version : If intelligence is hereditary, why aren't we all smarter?



Angela
30-12-18, 18:53
If you like to think, this is an interesting question.

I think Razib Khan may have hit on the answer: it doesn't always lead to reproductive fitness.

See:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/12/29/variation-in-general-intelligence-and-our-evolutionary-history/

Just one snippet:
"So let’s go back to intelligence. What could be the trade-offs? First, there are now results presented at conferences that very high general intelligence may exhibit a correlation with some mental pathologies. Though unpublished, this aligns with some prior intuitions. Additionally, there is the issue where on some characteristics being “species-typical” increases reproductive fitness (an average size nose), while in other characteristics being at an extreme is more attractive (very curvy women with large eyes and small chins; secondary sexual characteristics). Within intelligence, one could argue that being toodeviated from the norm might make socialization and pair-bonding difficult."

"Humans have large brains for our size. We are smarter than other primates. But evolutionary genetics today seems to be coming to the conclusion that it wasn’t a quantum jump, but gradual selection and change. Having a very low intellectual capacity was probably correlated with low fitness in the past (though small brains are calorically less greedy).But, having a very high general intelligencedoes not seem to have resulted in that great of a gain in social or cultural status in comparison to being of normal intelligence. In fact, if the genetic correlation is such that it’s associated with some higher risk for mental instability, it could simply be that a form of stabilizating selection over time kept humans within the “normal range” because that was evolutionarily optimal. Be smart enough. But not too smart that you are weird.
And, as theorists from cultural evolution have observed, we are a “hive-mind” which leverages collective wisdom. Most of us don’t have to derive mathematical equations, we can use the formula provided to us. Though it’s useful to have a few people around who can invent statistics that the rest of us use…"

Stuvanè
30-12-18, 20:38
Only my impressions for which I do not have time to document properly: I would say that I completely agree. Compiling a crude statistic It seems to me that genes rarely were samples of abundant and succesful progeny (we could rule out the striking case of the Bach family). In fact they are enlightened minds that are tolerated as exploitable in various ways by the community: praised, admired, appreciated for their skills, but to the test of facts who would change with their lives, often characterized by behavioral and social anomalies?
If I had to hazard a bet it seems to me that humanity as a whole is more and more fascinated by physical fitness compared to the intellectual, we are more and more aesthetically distant from our apish or semi-primitive progenitors, but we are not so equally from the point of view of intellectual abilities. I fear that the zenith of human intelligence has already occurred centuries ago, and now the parabola has started its descending curve.

LeBrok
30-12-18, 21:58
Depends on a scale of time. In millions of years or even hundred thousands there is a definite improvement in human/hominids intelligence. Last 100 thousand years maybe less so, thought most likely there is a measurable difference in intelligence between farmers and hunter gatherers. If there is, that means that there was a boost in intelligence during last 10 thousand years, when many hunter groups developed farming, and later developed civilizations. This and perhaps few more evolutionary differences might explain why modern hunter gatherers have such huge problem joining and existing in farmer's created civilizations.

markod
30-12-18, 22:03
It is my belief that it is wrong to project apply the observed trends in reproductive fitness today to our recent history. The first advanced civilizations emerged in the metal ages, and were thus likely a result of the selective pressures in place during those periods. Take the European Iron Age with the emergence of warlords amassing incredible amounts of wealth while most of the human population were presumably barely getting by - the very reason most of us are descended from just a handful of men who lived some time between the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages. These periods were much more defining in our evolutionary history than the social dynamics of bourgeois society wherein selective pressures don't matter much at all (mostly everyone reproduces due to institutionalized monogamy).

Traits that are maladaptive nowadays might have been adaptive in Iron Age Europe and vice versa. Perhaps intelligence used to be more predictive of reproductive success than it is nowadays.

Angela
30-12-18, 22:28
I'm not sure pure intelligence was ever that "adaptive" in the sense that it led to more progeny for the very bright. More likely someone bigger, stronger, more agile, with better coordination and more "street smarts" came along, enslaved the smart ones and stole their "inventions" or ideas as well as their women.

Maybe I'm being too cynical? I don't think so. Of course, if someone had all that AND high IQ that would be a different story, but there aren't that many such god like figures around/

Angela
30-12-18, 22:46
I'm not sure pure intelligence was ever that "adaptive" in the sense that it led to more progeny for the very bright. More likely someone bigger, stronger, more agile, with better coordination and more "street smarts" came along, enslaved the smart ones and stole their "inventions" or ideas as well as their women.

Maybe I'm being too cynical? I don't think so. Of course, if someone had all that AND high IQ that would be a different story, but there aren't that many such god like figures around/

As for highly intelligent women in the past it might have been a curse unless they were adept at hiding it. For a lot of men, I can think of few things more deflating to a certain part of their anatomy than a women who far exceeds them in intelligence...well, in anything, really.

I've always found it fascinating that it never seems to occur to intelligent men bemoaning the lack of intelligence in their offspring that their choice of mate might have played a part. You don't see that happening with some of the super-SMART, however. I mean, Bill Gates didn't run away with a Las Vegas stripper. There is Steve Mnuchin, however, and Elon Musk. :)

markod
31-12-18, 00:17
I'm not sure pure intelligence was ever that "adaptive" in the sense that it led to more progeny for the very bright. More likely someone bigger, stronger, more agile, with better coordination and more "street smarts" came along, enslaved the smart ones and stole their "inventions" or ideas as well as their women.

Maybe I'm being too cynical? I don't think so. Of course, if someone had all that AND high IQ that would be a different story, but there aren't that many such god like figures around/

I think we can be sure that what you're describing has happened many times during history and prehistory, but still looking at Europe at emergence of socially complex societies (first in the Aegean and Iberia, then in Hungary around ~1600 B.C.) I can't help but think that the LB/IA chiefs were more than mere brutes. They had the abilities to lead and equip armies, rule over increasingly large stretches of land etc. . Perhaps they weren't always the very brightest, but I think that relatively able men might have had a higher chance of succeeding in such an environent.

Angela
31-12-18, 01:02
I think we can be sure that what you're describing has happened many times during history and prehistory, but still looking at Europe at emergence of socially complex societies (first in the Aegean and Iberia, then in Hungary around ~1600 B.C.) I can't help but think that the LB/IA chiefs were more than mere brutes. They had the abilities to lead and equip armies, rule over increasingly large stretches of land etc. . Perhaps they weren't always the very brightest, but I think that relatively able men might have had a higher chance of succeeding in such an environent.

I agree to some extent. There were some war leaders whose names we know who were intelligent, i.e. Caesar and Hannibal just to name two, but such men don't necessarily leave a lot of progeny behind them, either because of fate, chance, or the brutality of the struggle for power. Genghis Khan did (although it might just have been a clan ydna), so there's that as well.

However, what did warrior chiefs do for mankind? What innovations did they create that either increased our chances of survival, or made our lives worth living? The first man, or woman, who first figured out that it might be a good idea to plant the best of the gathered wheat seeds in a place where they would get sun and water, the first person who figured out that warm clothes could be made by using a shard of bone with a hole in it and and some hide, all the way to Guttenberg and Michelangelo, just to name some, are worth thousands of warlords, and may have had no surviving offspring at all. Mightn't we be better off with the genes of the innovators, scientists, mathematicians, writers, artists, etc. than with the genes of Bronze Age war lords?

Not arguing with you at all. Just musing as I sit in front of the fire re-watching "The Game of Thrones". :) Perhaps we wouldn't be, though. Better off with the genes of highly intelligent people, I mean. Who would want to have the genes of the Grand Maester in King's Landing. Not all highly intelligent people are like Samwell Tarly. Look at Tywin.

The series also gives some examples of another factor brought up in the article and the paper. High intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with fitness in part perhaps because it's also more prone to higher levels of mental instability. Some examples: Ramsay Bolton, Cersei, Littlefinger to just name a few. Even Stannis loses it. He destroys his only child because of the mistaken prophecies of the Red Priestess, a mistake that Jon Snow doesn't make. Cersei's insane schemes and her insane and selfish love for her children no matter what they are and do could be said to have doomed her progeny. Someone was bound to kill Ramsay Bolton sooner or later. Richard II provoked rebellion just for being gay and favoring his favorites. I'm not convinced Daenerys and Jon Snow are as "bright" as the villains in the series, but they're having a longer run so far. :) Of course, one can be vicious and insane and be as thick as a plank, too: Joffrey.

It's all very complicated.

ToBeOrNotToBe
31-12-18, 01:22
We ARE smarter now, that's the thing: or at least some of us. Not all of humanity shares the same evolutionary history (which is blatantly obvious given even the most basic phenotypical differences that dogs and cats can easily recognise), which is why IQ maps like this are the way they are:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/National_IQ_per_country_-_estimates_by_Lynn_and_Vanhanen_2006.png

The main driving factor towards this increase in IQ (and changes in other general traits too for that matter) was the advent of large-scale farming, and evolutionary processes only accelerated further with the advent of civilisation in the Metal Ages. If you haven't, you should really read 'The 10,000 Year Explosion'.

Now, while this trend holds as a whole, it doesn't easily explain why Europeans and East Asians are more intelligent on average than the more typical "farmer" populations from the Middle East (Jews being the exception), especially given that for most of what we would call history the Middle East was the hub of civilisation and intellectual development in all fields. Education and health will play a role, though certainly not a large role given how genetic IQ seems to be (at least 3/4 of the variability is genetic), so I can only hazard a guess and say there has either been a recent period of dysgenics in the Middle East, or eugenics in Europe and potentially East Asia. Eugenics for IQ massively favours improving verbal IQ over spatial IQ, which is why Ashkenazim have sub-par (by European standards) spatial IQs but ridiculously high verbal IQs, and East Asians have (compared to Europeans) lower verbal IQs and higher spatial IQs, which to me means that their period of eugenics was much older than that of Europeans, perhaps dating to the Mesolithic, where spatial IQ would be a lot more important for survival and thus maximum procreation. Indeed, East Asians have the most favourable skull shape for intelligence (with the largest volume due to a low surface area:volume ratio (i.e. shaped more like a ball, or brachycephalic), being wide and short so as to also have a larger frontal lobe), which again suggests an origin of their period of eugenics to the hunter-gatherer era, which would be a potential exception to the premise of the 10,000 year explosion (of eugenics).

The biggest issue right now though is unrelated to intelligence, but the societal trend towards femininity, as despite being an extremely unmasculine person myself I can definitely say that greatness is inextricably linked to masculinity, and it is the crippling of this boldness that has lead to the current diseased state of the West (people literally cut their penises off and forcefully keep an open wound from closing because they lack this boldness to overcome their dissonant gender dysphoria and have been twisted by society, with the same society cheering to protect this via maternal instincts, imagine the reactions of those living 100 years before us in much happier times). Don't associate masculinity with men and femininity with women, by the way - I mean it more in terms of psychological tendencies. Plenty of women can be masculine - no women at the Olympics will have a feminine mindset, for example; plenty of men can be feminine too, the best example is the strict adherence to political correctness among the Swedes, who by no coincidence are of a phenotype with one of the lowest amounts of sexual dimorphism. If you must put a label on me, I'm a fanboy of German Dinarids - "strong" (not fleshy) noses, with wide foreheads and wide (but not overly wide like Cromagnids) jaws, and short head length.

ToBeOrNotToBe
31-12-18, 01:40
And yeah that was a ramble but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of sense to the IQ part, but maybe only some to the masculinity-femininity part aha

Silesian
31-12-18, 05:04
We ARE smarter now, that's the thing: or at least some of us. Not all of humanity shares the same evolutionary history (which is blatantly obvious given even the most basic phenotypical differences that dogs and cats can easily recognise), which is why IQ maps like this are the way they are:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/National_IQ_per_country_-_estimates_by_Lynn_and_Vanhanen_2006.png

The main driving factor towards this increase in IQ (and changes in other general traits too for that matter) was the advent of large-scale farming, and evolutionary processes only accelerated further with the advent of civilisation in the Metal Ages. If you haven't, you should really read 'The 10,000 Year Explosion'.

Now, while this trend holds as a whole, it doesn't easily explain why Europeans and East Asians are more intelligent on average than the more typical "farmer" populations from the Middle East (Jews being the exception), especially given that for most of what we would call history the Middle East was the hub of civilisation and intellectual development in all fields. Education and health will play a role, though certainly not a large role given how genetic IQ seems to be (at least 3/4 of the variability is genetic), so I can only hazard a guess and say there has either been a recent period of dysgenics in the Middle East, or eugenics in Europe and potentially East Asia. Eugenics for IQ massively favours improving verbal IQ over spatial IQ, which is why Ashkenazim have sub-par (by European standards) spatial IQs but ridiculously high verbal IQs, and East Asians have (compared to Europeans) lower verbal IQs and higher spatial IQs, which to me means that their period of eugenics was much older than that of Europeans, perhaps dating to the Mesolithic, where spatial IQ would be a lot more important for survival and thus maximum procreation. Indeed, East Asians have the most favourable skull shape for intelligence (with the largest volume due to a low surface area:volume ratio (i.e. shaped more like a ball, or brachycephalic), being wide and short so as to also have a larger frontal lobe), which again suggests an origin of their period of eugenics to the hunter-gatherer era, which would be a potential exception to the premise of the 10,000 year explosion (of eugenics).

The biggest issue right now though is unrelated to intelligence, but the societal trend towards femininity, as despite being an extremely unmasculine person myself I can definitely say that greatness is inextricably linked to masculinity, and it is the crippling of this boldness that has lead to the current diseased state of the West (people literally cut their penises off and forcefully keep an open wound from closing because they lack this boldness to overcome their dissonant gender dysphoria and have been twisted by society, with the same society cheering to protect this via maternal instincts, imagine the reactions of those living 100 years before us in much happier times). Don't associate masculinity with men and femininity with women, by the way - I mean it more in terms of psychological tendencies. Plenty of women can be masculine - no women at the Olympics will have a feminine mindset, for example; plenty of men can be feminine too, the best example is the strict adherence to political correctness among the Swedes, who by no coincidence are of a phenotype with one of the lowest amounts of sexual dimorphism. If you must put a label on me, I'm a fanboy of German Dinarids - "strong" (not fleshy) noses, with wide foreheads and wide (but not overly wide like Cromagnids) jaws, and short head length.

Areas with a long history of farming like Natufian culture[thousands of years]India and Aztec culture should show purple[high IQ] on your map compared to nomadic society like Mongolia or Iceland[101+/-]. Also your verbal-spatial IQ is a chicken egg[what came first question] with the backdrop of archaic human admixture[Neandertal] in Europe 100's of thousands of years before modern humans arrived, and successfully mated -creating offspring with admixture with a different skull shape and perhaps use of language fire and tools.

Cpluskx
31-12-18, 17:06
In some places intelligence may have gone down over time. In Middle East for example all the Christian populations seem to have higher IQs than Muslim populations even though they are genetically very similar. Maronites are the best example.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-01-19, 04:28
In some places intelligence may have gone down over time. In Middle East for example all the Christian populations seem to have higher IQs than Muslim populations even though they are genetically very similar. Maronites are the best example.

Interesting, definitely supports my dysgenics argument. However even before the expansion of Islam, the balance of power was shifting from the Middle East to the Mediterranean.

Silesian
01-01-19, 05:17
In some places intelligence may have gone down over time. In Middle East for example all the Christian populations seem to have higher IQs than Muslim populations even though they are genetically very similar. Maronites are the best example.

What about Ashkenazi IQ compared with Sephardic IQ? Side point, natural progression to extremely high verbal IQ would be to invent writing, either on paper and or clay tablets, like the Sumerians or Egyptians.

Cpluskx
01-01-19, 12:30
@ToBeOrNotToBe
I would say even during the 11th century Middle East was still the most advanced place. Decline against Med was probably caused by population decline, climate conditions etc. not human capital decline.

@Silesian
Cochran & Harpending work on Ashkenazi makes sense to me. Ashkenazi iq increased in Europe so much because only the Ashkenazi who can do modern day white collar jobs (like finance) stayed alive and reproduced. Sephardi wasn't subject to similar pressure. (I think they score around 96-98)

Those jobs requires verbal & math iq not spatial so that's why Ashkenazi spatial iq stayed at 98, their ancient Middle Eastern level. This also proves that iq in Ancient Middle East was around at least 98.

ToBeOrNotToBe
01-01-19, 14:21
@ToBeOrNotToBe
I would say even during the 11th century Middle East was still the most advanced place. Decline against Med was probably caused by population decline, climate conditions etc. not human capital decline.

@Silesian
Cochran & Harpending work on Ashkenazi makes sense to me. Ashkenazi iq increased in Europe so much because only the Ashkenazi who can do modern day white collar jobs (like finance) stayed alive and reproduced. Sephardi wasn't subject to similar pressure. (I think they score around 96-98)

Those jobs requires verbal & math iq not spatial so that's why Ashkenazi spatial iq stayed at 98, their ancient Middle Eastern level. This also proves that iq in Ancient Middle East was around at least 98.

No way IQ anywhere during that time frame was 98 imo

Silesian
01-01-19, 16:19
@ToBeOrNotToBe
I would say even during the 11th century Middle East was still the most advanced place. Decline against Med was probably caused by population decline, climate conditions etc. not human capital decline.

@Silesian
Cochran & Harpending work on Ashkenazi makes sense to me. Ashkenazi iq increased in Europe so much because only the Ashkenazi who can do modern day white collar jobs (like finance) stayed alive and reproduced. Sephardi wasn't subject to similar pressure. (I think they score around 96-98)

Those jobs requires verbal & math iq not spatial so that's why Ashkenazi spatial iq stayed at 98, their ancient Middle Eastern level. This also proves that iq in Ancient Middle East was around at least 98.

Interesting. If one could take both groups Ashkenazi/Sephardic who practiced edogamy[in group preference] and brought up in a similar traditional family values/education measure results. As far as spatial, I would argue chess [non verbal competition] as form of strategic spatial reasoning. Has anyone counted the number of Ashkenazi and Sephardic world champions?
What about the relationship between genes and language/culture? My Jamaican friends sister married into an Ashkenazi family, he pointed this group to me
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/lemba-tribe-in-southern-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal

markod
01-01-19, 16:39
@ToBeOrNotToBe
I would say even during the 11th century Middle East was still the most advanced place. Decline against Med was probably caused by population decline, climate conditions etc. not human capital decline.

Chance probably played a signficant role in this. The regions that would flourish in the early modern period were culturally or geographically close to Northern Italy and specifically Renaissance/Humanist Florence. If it wasn't for that cultural impetus Europe would probably have remained a 'Gothic' backwater.

I really doubt IQ is a robust enough measure to account for these developments.

Cpluskx
01-01-19, 16:55
@Markod

Certainly IQ itself is not enough. For example: IQ in North Korea is higher than most of the world.

markod
01-01-19, 17:04
@Markod

Certainly IQ itself is not enough. For example: IQ in North Korea is higher than most of the world.

There's also the question whether IQ is actually stable. East German IQ for example increased from 90 to about 100 from the unification until today.

davef
01-01-19, 17:35
There's also the question whether IQ is actually stable. East German IQ for example increased from 90 to about 100 from the unification until today.
Probably bc they had access to better nutrition due to getting out of poverty

gidai
01-01-19, 17:58
People say "The mother of stupidity is always pregnant." But there must be something that compensates for this.

Lenab
01-01-19, 19:36
What about Ashkenazi IQ compared with Sephardic IQ? Side point, natural progression to extremely high verbal IQ would be to invent writing, either on paper and or clay tablets, like the Sumerians or Egyptians.
Insignificant they are direct relations. What about Western educated European Americans compared to Sub Saharan Africans who live in small villages?

Angela
01-01-19, 19:45
Gentlemen, all that stuff about visual IQ in Jews being low has to be false. Half of the Chess Grand Masters are Ashkenazi Jews. There isn't a more visually oriented skill. Or look at the number of Ashkenazi Nobel Laureates in science.

Also, Cochran doesn't seem to know that visual aptitude is tied to higher order mathematical reasoning. Einstein was like that. He reported he didn't learn to read until very late, but he could "see" his mathematical formulas in his mind. In fact, he "conceived his theory of relativity, which produced possibly the most familiarequation of all time (E = mc2), by visualizing himself riding a beam of light. Stephen Hawking hasexplained that “by losing the finer dexterity of my hands, I was forced to travel the universe in my mind,and try to visualize the ways in which it worked” (Johnson, 2014). My brother is a bit like that. He's told me he sometimes doesn't bother running a formula because he can see in his head the form the data results would take on a graph.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/lnspayingattention.pdf

"According to the National Research Council (2006), spatial thinking involves three components: “conceptsof space, tools of representation, and processes of reasoning” (p. 3). It involves understanding relationshipswithin and between spatial structures and, through a wide variety of possible representations (fromdrawings to computer models), involves the means to communicate about them. When a child rotatesa rectangular prism to fit into the castle she is building at the block centre, she is employing spatialreasoning, as is the student who uses a diagram of a rectangle to prove that the formula for findingthe area of a triangle is ½b 3 h. Spatial reasoning vitally informs our ability to investigate and solveproblems, especially non-routine or novel problems, in mathematics."

You can't make a correlation between Ashkenazim and Middle Easterners or Ashkenazim and Europeans. They're a case apart.

I've also seen results for Christian Lebanese and Palestinians which are higher than for their Muslim compatriots, and, in fact, are quite high in terms of world scores. Before all the chaos that descended on the Middle East Lebanese and Palestinians as a whole had high rates of attendance at university. If becoming a millionaire from nothing counts as intelligent, the Lebanese are very bright. They have produced an extraordinary number of billionaires for such a small population: one in about 500,000 if I remember correctly.

I don't know. All these populations are endogamous, but perhaps it has something to do with the extraordinarily high rates of first cousin marriage among Muslims in the Middle East, and particularly of the father's brother's daughter variety. I saw some complicated formula somewhere which shows this results in the highest inbreeding coefficient. Perhaps polygamy also has something to do with it? When monogamy is the rule, moneyed, reasonably intelligent families choose mates for their offspring from other moneyed, reasonably intelligent families. When a man can mate with as many women as he can afford, he'll presumably choose looks, no matter what the background or intelligence. Have enough children with low IQ people and you get exponentially more low IQ people, to be harsh about it.

Every very inbred, polygamous clan I've ever read about eventually produces a group of very low IQ people.

Lenab
01-01-19, 20:18
Most Muslims in Lebanon and Syria are Christian converts too after the 1800s so i'd like to see some newly updated sources regarding that one Angela.

Steve Jobs is a Syrian Muslim.

Lenab
01-01-19, 20:23
Or half whatever....Just because the majority of Christians in Lebanon apart from Carlos Slim ( and it's from merit not academics ) who has been knocked off his spot several years ago, have been pop stars and film actors like 20 or 30 years ago does not make Christians in Lebanon successful or Lebanese Christians successful.

One is also a porn star ( Mia Khalifa )

Lenab
01-01-19, 20:34
Another one Angela seeing as you live in New York, you should know about this guy yes he was Muslim he has a nice Muslim name too ''Hassan''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Kamel_Al-Sabbah

Btw most bogus Muslims groups are funded too by let's just say ''abroad'' people.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 05:53
Probably bc they had access to better nutrition due to getting out of poverty

You know nothing about East Germany then, thanks for that. East Germany wasn't Ukraine in the 1930s ffs

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 06:01
Gentlemen, all that stuff about visual IQ in Jews being low has to be false. Half of the Chess Grand Masters are Ashkenazi Jews. There isn't a more visually oriented skill. Or look at the number of Ashkenazi Nobel Laureates in science.

Also, Cochran doesn't seem to know that visual aptitude is tied to higher order mathematical reasoning. Einstein was like that. He reported he didn't learn to read until very late, but he could "see" his mathematical formulas in his mind. In fact, he "conceived his theory of relativity, which produced possibly the most familiarequation of all time (E = mc2), by visualizing himself riding a beam of light. Stephen Hawking hasexplained that “by losing the finer dexterity of my hands, I was forced to travel the universe in my mind,and try to visualize the ways in which it worked” (Johnson, 2014). My brother is a bit like that. He's told me he sometimes doesn't bother running a formula because he can see in his head the form the data results would take on a graph.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/lnspayingattention.pdf

"According to the National Research Council (2006), spatial thinking involves three components: “conceptsof space, tools of representation, and processes of reasoning” (p. 3). It involves understanding relationshipswithin and between spatial structures and, through a wide variety of possible representations (fromdrawings to computer models), involves the means to communicate about them. When a child rotatesa rectangular prism to fit into the castle she is building at the block centre, she is employing spatialreasoning, as is the student who uses a diagram of a rectangle to prove that the formula for findingthe area of a triangle is ½b 3 h. Spatial reasoning vitally informs our ability to investigate and solveproblems, especially non-routine or novel problems, in mathematics."

You can't make a correlation between Ashkenazim and Middle Easterners or Ashkenazim and Europeans. They're a case apart.

I've also seen results for Christian Lebanese and Palestinians which are higher than for their Muslim compatriots, and, in fact, are quite high in terms of world scores. Before all the chaos that descended on the Middle East Lebanese and Palestinians as a whole had high rates of attendance at university. If becoming a millionaire from nothing counts as intelligent, the Lebanese are very bright. They have produced an extraordinary number of billionaires for such a small population: one in about 500,000 if I remember correctly.

I don't know. All these populations are endogamous, but perhaps it has something to do with the extraordinarily high rates of first cousin marriage among Muslims in the Middle East, and particularly of the father's brother's daughter variety. I saw some complicated formula somewhere which shows this results in the highest inbreeding coefficient. Perhaps polygamy also has something to do with it? When monogamy is the rule, moneyed, reasonably intelligent families choose mates for their offspring from other moneyed, reasonably intelligent families. When a man can mate with as many women as he can afford, he'll presumably choose looks, no matter what the background or intelligence. Have enough children with low IQ people and you get exponentially more low IQ people, to be harsh about it.

Every very inbred, polygamous clan I've ever read about eventually produces a group of very low IQ people.

Well I mean you're saying that something defined by a test is lower than the test results show - that, assuming the testing isn't based on dodgy samples (which it isn't), is by definition impossible. That is literally more impossible than the existence unicorns, but anyway.

Chess isn't so much a visually orientated skill, you don't need to visualise space in a chess game, anybody can visualise a chess board. Chess is about primarily two things: how many moves you can think ahead to account for the multiple different paths your opponent can go down (so you need amazing working memory), and how creative you are (as otherwise you'd just be like a computer, relying on brute force - this is the bit that requires what we'd define as "intelligence"). The skill used in, say, mentally unfolding and folding a die isn't needed at all: chess isn't three dimensional.

And science isn't really that visually-orientated as the maths breaks that down very nicely, trust me. What you say actually furthers the evidence though - out of all the sciences Jews perform worst (still not bad though obviously) at Chemistry, which requires BY FAR the most spatial reasoning. Chess is by far the biggest overrepresentation of Jews in any intellectual field (it is something ridiculous like 50% of the greatest ever players, which even though (and I'm not being smug) Ashkenazim are smart, we can't be THAT smart, so culture must play a big role here too)

Here's the website with all the details btw: http://jinfo.org/

I think cousin marriage might be spot on though tbh for the reason of Middle Eastern lower-than-it-should-be IQ - I know people who work with deformed babies in the UK's NHS, and the vast majority have Muslim names, as obviously inbreeding along familial lines that close increases the chance of expressing nasty recessive genes. Long-term inbreeding is actually a good thing though, because it means those recessive genes are expressed more often and so can be subject to natural selection.

Angela
02-01-19, 19:18
Some of our posters have never watched blindfolded chess, or people playing multiple games at once. Nor have they ever listened to chess experts themselves.

"Chess is highly visual. When the best players are playing at their best, they can see not only all of the piece interactions that convey protection and threats, but all of these interactions as they might change over the next several moves, or even further into the future. Some players can play blindfold chess with many opponents.Most of us have experiential and/or visualization/intelligence limitations that prevent us from performing at that level... For those of us who cannot see like the masters, our ability to predict future outcomes on the board is spotty at times, and seemingly non-existent at others. We cannot see the immediate future as well, or even the present at times. Our inability to see and feel all of the direct and implied current and future interactions between the pieces on the board means we often tread through minefields without adequate plans. And our games are won by the player who makes the smaller, least-frequent mistakes."

In terms of correlation with professions, high scores in visual/spatial intelligence lead to good outcomes in architecture, engineering, and physics in particular. That is a FACT. Someone might miss the "genius" cut off of 135, or not make mensa because of lower verbal scores, but go on to win Nobel Prizes in physics, i.e. Shockley.

Since someone mentioned that chemistry requires high visual spatial scores, and Ashkenazim have lower than expected scores, please take a look at the number of Jewish Nobel Prize laureates in:

Chemistry: 35
Physics: 44

It really isn't smart to make categorical statements which can so easily be falsified.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 20:07
Some of our posters have never watched blindfolded chess, or people playing multiple games at once. Nor have they ever listened to chess experts themselves.

"Chess is highly visual. When the best players are playing at their best, they can see not only all of the piece interactions that convey protection and threats, but all of these interactions as they might change over the next several moves, or even further into the future. Some players can play blindfold chess with many opponents.Most of us have experiential and/or visualization/intelligence limitations that prevent us from performing at that level... For those of us who cannot see like the masters, our ability to predict future outcomes on the board is spotty at times, and seemingly non-existent at others. We cannot see the immediate future as well, or even the present at times. Our inability to see and feel all of the direct and implied current and future interactions between the pieces on the board means we often tread through minefields without adequate plans. And our games are won by the player who makes the smaller, least-frequent mistakes."

In terms of correlation with professions, high scores in visual/spatial intelligence lead to good outcomes in architecture, engineering, and physics in particular. That is a FACT. Someone might miss the "genius" cut off of 135, or not make mensa because of lower verbal scores, but go on to win Nobel Prizes in physics, i.e. Shockley.

Since someone mentioned that chemistry requires high visual spatial scores, and Ashkenazim have lower than expected scores, please take a look at the number of Jewish Nobel Prize laureates in:

Chemistry: 35
Physics: 44

It really isn't smart to make categorical statements which can so easily be falsified.

You literally just took that quote from a forum post (see below), all this after I just called you smart earlier on...

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/does-good-chess-require-visual-spatial-skills

Here's a proper source:

https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/805/1/Visuo-spatial_abilities.pdf

"The extent to which the acquisition of expertise in knowledge-rich domains, such as chess, can be influenced by general individual characteristics, such as intelligence, has remained unclear. Some previous studies with children have documented significant correlations between chess skill and performance on some psychometric tests, such as performance IQ (Frydman & Lynn, 1992). However, we found no evidence for a correlation between chess skill and visual memory ability in a group of adult chess players (n=36, age = 28.4). This finding, together with other data in the literature, suggests that there is surprisingly little evidence that chess skill and visuo-spatial ability are associated in adults. Thus, visual memory ability, and perhaps visuo-spatial intelligence, may be relatively unimportant factors in the long-term acquisition of chess skill."

Sorry Angela, before you get all sarcastic you should at least be correct. Oh, and I forgot to mention, at my old school I spoke to one of the UK's top chess players (who taught me maths), and he agreed with my logic and said pattern recognition and working memory are by far the most important factors. But that's unreliable anecdote, check out the source.

There's no need to be so arrogant, especially when you're incorrect, just chill out. Firstly being wrong about copper smelting and chastising all of us, now this - thank God this is an open forum

:)

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 20:24
Some of our posters have never watched blindfolded chess, or people playing multiple games at once. Nor have they ever listened to chess experts themselves.

"Chess is highly visual. When the best players are playing at their best, they can see not only all of the piece interactions that convey protection and threats, but all of these interactions as they might change over the next several moves, or even further into the future. Some players can play blindfold chess with many opponents.Most of us have experiential and/or visualization/intelligence limitations that prevent us from performing at that level... For those of us who cannot see like the masters, our ability to predict future outcomes on the board is spotty at times, and seemingly non-existent at others. We cannot see the immediate future as well, or even the present at times. Our inability to see and feel all of the direct and implied current and future interactions between the pieces on the board means we often tread through minefields without adequate plans. And our games are won by the player who makes the smaller, least-frequent mistakes."

In terms of correlation with professions, high scores in visual/spatial intelligence lead to good outcomes in architecture, engineering, and physics in particular. That is a FACT. Someone might miss the "genius" cut off of 135, or not make mensa because of lower verbal scores, but go on to win Nobel Prizes in physics, i.e. Shockley.

Since someone mentioned that chemistry requires high visual spatial scores, and Ashkenazim have lower than expected scores, please take a look at the number of Jewish Nobel Prize laureates in:

Chemistry: 35
Physics: 44

It really isn't smart to make categorical statements which can so easily be falsified.

Tell me Angela, how many Jewish contributions to engineering do you know about? This is the closest thing to a Nobel Prize in Engineering, and there are very few Jews on the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stark_Draper_Prize

From the Nobel Prizes, you'd expect around 25% to be Jewish, but it seems to be about 10% from a quick glance, which is hardly bad mind you but a clear drop from the sciences. Not only that, but most of these prizes seem to have been given to scientists related to electronics, and not to "hardcore" engineering like e.g. inventing the jet engine, where you really need visual-spatial skills.

And what about the visual arts? How many good Jewish painters, sculptors, architects etc. are there out there? Sure, there are a lot of Jewish directors, but in terms of making great movies there are surprisingly few with Spielberg being a notable exception, check for yourself if you don't believe me.

You're just wrong, and I don't see why you're more intent on defending the pride of Jewish ridiculous intellectual overrepresentation than I am. For every von Kármán, there are 10 or even 20 Noam Chomskys. I think Murray's book about accomplishment has a section on Jews that talks about this, maybe you should read it.

markod
02-01-19, 20:28
Well I mean you're saying that something defined by a test is lower than the test results show - that, assuming the testing isn't based on dodgy samples (which it isn't), is by definition impossible. That is literally more impossible than the existence unicorns, but anyway.

Chess isn't so much a visually orientated skill, you don't need to visualise space in a chess game, anybody can visualise a chess board. Chess is about primarily two things: how many moves you can think ahead to account for the multiple different paths your opponent can go down (so you need amazing working memory), and how creative you are (as otherwise you'd just be like a computer, relying on brute force - this is the bit that requires what we'd define as "intelligence"). The skill used in, say, mentally unfolding and folding a die isn't needed at all: chess isn't three dimensional.

And science isn't really that visually-orientated as the maths breaks that down very nicely, trust me. What you say actually furthers the evidence though - out of all the sciences Jews perform worst (still not bad though obviously) at Chemistry, which requires BY FAR the most spatial reasoning. Chess is by far the biggest overrepresentation of Jews in any intellectual field (it is something ridiculous like 50% of the greatest ever players, which even though (and I'm not being smug) Ashkenazim are smart, we can't be THAT smart, so culture must play a big role here too)

Here's the website with all the details btw: http://jinfo.org/

I think cousin marriage might be spot on though tbh for the reason of Middle Eastern lower-than-it-should-be IQ - I know people who work with deformed babies in the UK's NHS, and the vast majority have Muslim names, as obviously inbreeding along familial lines that close increases the chance of expressing nasty recessive genes. Long-term inbreeding is actually a good thing though, because it means those recessive genes are expressed more often and so can be subject to natural selection.

Does that mean that when it comes to psychometrics most advanced maths (other than topology and such) would belong to the category of verbal arguments?

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 20:31
Does that mean that when it comes too psychometrics most advanced maths (other than topology and such) would belong to the category of verbal arguments?

Yup, the syntax in language is similar (in the very broad scheme of things) to the logic in maths, which is why mathematical and verbal IQs track with one another and are almost interchangeable. What you said is entirely correct.

Just ignore what Angela said btw, she took a quote from a random user on an online chess forum as proof, no doubt she'll now be looking for a more legitimate source of anecdote, which doesn't even matter because it would just be anecdote and not an actual study.

ToBeOrNotToBe
02-01-19, 20:38
Does that mean that when it comes to psychometrics most advanced maths (other than topology and such) would belong to the category of verbal arguments?

Even with topology, the maths breaks things down very nicely as I said. You can do maths in infinite dimensions for example, no need (and no way!) to visualise. I don't know the ins and outs of that though and I'm sure visualising is important in topology, but it isn't as important as it might seem.

Angela
02-01-19, 21:07
You literally just took that quote from a forum post (see below), all this after I just called you smart earlier on...

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/does-good-chess-require-visual-spatial-skills

Here's a proper source:

https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/805/1/Visuo-spatial_abilities.pdf

"The extent to which the acquisition of expertise in knowledge-rich domains, such aschess, can be influenced by general individual characteristics, such as intelligence, hasremained unclear. Some previous studies with children have documented significantcorrelations between chess skill and performance on some psychometric tests, such asperformance IQ (Frydman & Lynn, 1992). However, we found no evidence for acorrelation between chess skill and visual memory ability in a group of adult chessplayers (n=36, age = 28.4). This finding, together with other data in the literature,suggests that there is surprisingly little evidence that chess skill and visuo-spatial abilityare associated in adults. Thus, visual memory ability, and perhaps visuo-spatialintelligence, may be relatively unimportant factors in the long-term acquisition of chessskill."

Sorry Angela, before you get all sarcastic you should at least be correct. Oh, and I forgot to mention, at my old school I spoke to one of the UK's top chess players (who taught me maths), and he agreed with my logic and said pattern recognition and working memory are by far the most important factors. But that's unreliable anecdote, check out the source.

No need to be so arrogant in yourself, especially when you're incorrect, just chill out. Firstly being wrong about copper smelting and chastising all of us, now this - thank God this is an open forum

:)

Yes, so everyone can see you ignore evidence that refutes nonsense you write, i.e. : CHEMISTRY NOBELS 35; PHYSICS NOBELS 44 for Ashkenazim.

Who cares if it came from a blog? Better than quoting a paper you haven't read carefully, or you hope others didn't read carefully, so you can mislead them. The authors, thankfully, are more honest than you.

The paper tested ONE aspect of visual spatial ability: Visual Recall.

From the authors:

"At first sight, our finding appears to go against some previous data that havesuggested a correlation between visuo-spatial ability and chess skill in a sample of chessplayers (e.g. Frydman & Lynn, 1992). How, then, do we reconcile our findings with theprevious data? We suggest two possibilities. First, our task tapped visual memory,whereas the performance IQ measure of Frydman and Lynn would have tapped a wider May 19, 2007 12range of abilities. Thus, some component of performance IQ, unrelated to visual memory,or even visuo-spatial abilities in general, may be associated with chess skill in adults. Forexample, chess players’ thinking time is limited by a clock, which is likely to foster thedevelopment of time-management skills allowing good performance under time pressure.These skills, in turn, are useful for several performance subtests of the Wechsler test,such the digit symbol or the block design tasks, which either are timed or award bonuspoints for fast answers (Mackintosh, 1998). Clearly, this is an important area for furtherresearch."

"Nonetheless, the study had a number of limitations. First, we only measured performanceon visual memory; we cannot be certain that chess skill in adults is unrelated to othercomponents of visuo-spatial ability. Future studies should collect richer data on spatial(and verbal) IQ of chess players to investigate this issue further."

"Third, our study was cross-sectional; itwill clearly be necessary to take multiple measures of intelligence and chess skill in alongitudinal study extended over many years to fully investigate the relationship betweenintelligence and skill acquisition in chess. Last, individuals with higher levels of visualmemory ability may be able to attain the same level of chess skill as other individualswith less deliberate practice; we did not get measures of amount of practice which wouldhave allowed us to investigate this.In sum, given the conflicting evidence, we believe it is too early to say whethergood visuo-spatial abilities are necessary for strong
chess play."

LET ME REPEAT THE LAST SENTENCE: GIVEN THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, WE BELIEVE IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY WHETHER GOOD VISUO-SPATIAL ABILITIES ARE NECESSARY FOR STRONG CHESS PLAY.

Dishonest argumentation is highly frowned upon here. Cut it out or you're out of here.

A much more recent mega-analysis of chest and IQ components. There is a correlation with visual spatial ability, apparently, although the correlation with numerical ability is still higher. That may be because of still unexplored aspects, however.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301593

By the way, you're the one who said CHEMISTRY requires the highest visual/spatial skills, not me. Just wanted to point out you didn't quite think that one through. :)

As for there being fewer Jewish engineers than Jewish chemists and physicists, it may be for a similar reason to why my brother moved from mechanical engineering (fluid mechanics) to mathematics and physics: according to him, a lot of engineering gets very boring. People who like higher order thinking might move away from it. That said, most of his professors at MIT were Jews.

This isn't about stoking the ego of Ashkenazi Jews; it's about honest and objective analysis. Besides, no one should pride themselves on an accident of birth and evolution.

BTW, you really believe that I believe you're Jewish??? PLEASE!

Angela
02-01-19, 21:19
Yes, so everyone can see you ignore evidence that refutes nonsense you write, i.e. : CHEMISTRY NOBELS 35; PHYSICS NOBELS 44 for Ashkenazim.

Who cares if it came from a blog? Better than quoting a paper you haven't read carefully, or you hope others didn't read carefully, so you can mislead them. The authors, thankfully, are more honest than you.

The paper tested ONE aspect of visual spatial ability: Visual Recall.

From the authors:

"At first sight, our finding appears to go against some previous data that havesuggested a correlation between visuo-spatial ability and chess skill in a sample of chessplayers (e.g. Frydman & Lynn, 1992). How, then, do we reconcile our findings with theprevious data? We suggest two possibilities. First, our task tapped visual memory,whereas the performance IQ measure of Frydman and Lynn would have tapped a wider May 19, 2007 12range of abilities. Thus, some component of performance IQ, unrelated to visual memory,or even visuo-spatial abilities in general, may be associated with chess skill in adults. Forexample, chess players’ thinking time is limited by a clock, which is likely to foster thedevelopment of time-management skills allowing good performance under time pressure.These skills, in turn, are useful for several performance subtests of the Wechsler test,such the digit symbol or the block design tasks, which either are timed or award bonuspoints for fast answers (Mackintosh, 1998). Clearly, this is an important area for furtherresearch."

"Nonetheless, the study had a number of limitations. First, we only measured performanceon visual memory; we cannot be certain that chess skill in adults is unrelated to othercomponents of visuo-spatial ability. Future studies should collect richer data on spatial(and verbal) IQ of chess players to investigate this issue further."

"Third, our study was cross-sectional; itwill clearly be necessary to take multiple measures of intelligence and chess skill in alongitudinal study extended over many years to fully investigate the relationship betweenintelligence and skill acquisition in chess. Last, individuals with higher levels of visualmemory ability may be able to attain the same level of chess skill as other individualswith less deliberate practice; we did not get measures of amount of practice which wouldhave allowed us to investigate this.In sum, given the conflicting evidence, we believe it is too early to say whethergood visuo-spatial abilities are necessary for strong
chess play."

LET ME REPEAT THE LAST SENTENCE: GIVEN THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, WE BELIEVE IT IS TOO EARLY TO SAY WHETHER GOOD VISUO-SPATIAL ABILITIES ARE NECESSARY FOR STRONG CHESS PLAY.

Dishonest argumentation is highly frowned upon here. Cut it out or you're out of here.

A much more recent mega-analysis of chest and IQ components. There is a correlation with visual spatial ability, apparently, although the correlation with numerical ability is still higher. That may be because of still unexplored aspects, however.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301593

By the way, you're the one who said CHEMISTRY requires the highest visual/spatial skills, not me. Just wanted to point out you didn't quite think that one through. :)

As for there being fewer Jewish engineers than Jewish chemists and physicists, it may be for a similar reason to why my brother moved from mechanical engineering (fluid mechanics) to mathematics and physics: according to him, a lot of engineering gets very boring. People who like higher order thinking might move away from it. That said, most of his professors at MIT were Jews.

This isn't about stoking the ego of Ashkenazi Jews; it's about honest and objective analysis. Besides, no one should pride themselves on an accident of birth and evolution.

BTW, you really believe that I believe you're Jewish??? PLEASE!

As for correlation with types of mathematical ability, stop talking about visual spatial skills as a whole.

For other members, read the PAPERS; don't rely on information from t-rolls.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5994429/

Btw, as for lack of visual artists among Jews: Strange that a Jew doesn't know that religious Jews, which were all Jews until about 150 years ago, were forbidden from carving "graven" images. In that short period they've done pretty well:

Modigliani
Chagall
Max Weber

There's dozens more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Jews_associated_with_the_visual_arts

Plus, that's a certain specific subset of visual/spatial skills. You keep insisting on lumping them all together.

davef
03-01-19, 03:30
I took two years of physics in college and the electricity and magnetism unit had quite a bit of 3-D visualization since you had to think along the xyz axis. As a CS major i got pretty far with my ability to picture algorithms and complex data structures in my head, so visualization does help tremendously in these kinds of fields.

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-01-19, 03:57
I took two years of physics in college and the electricity and magnetism unit had quite a bit of 3-D visualization since you had to think along the xyz axis. As a CS major i got pretty far with my ability to picture algorithms and complex data structures in my head, so visualization does help tremendously in these kinds of fields.

If you're thinking of vectors then how much visualisation did you actually need? You just have to break each up into its i,j,k unit vectors and you just have to imagine three lines, one in each dimension. That doesn't require any major visual-spatial skills, even a dog could probably do it if it knew what vectors were lol

Salento
03-01-19, 05:36
If you're thinking of vectors then how much visualisation did you actually need? You just have to break each up into its i,j,k unit vectors and you just have to imagine three lines, one in each dimension. That doesn't require any major visual-spatial skills, even a dog could probably do it if it knew what vectors were lol

You're confused. There are some dogs that are very clever, and I could swear that my old dog was smarter than so many people I “interact” !

ToBeOrNotToBe
03-01-19, 05:43
If you're thinking of vectors then how much visualisation did you actually need? You just have to break each up into its i,j,k unit vectors and you just have to imagine three lines, one in each dimension. That doesn't require any major visual-spatial skills, even a dog could probably do it if it knew what vectors were lol

Why the hell have people downvoted this...

Salento
03-01-19, 05:49
Why the hell have people downvoted this...

imo is because you bragged, and compared a Eupedia member to a Dog.

CrazyDonkey
04-01-19, 19:06
If a question of brawn/beauty vs brains, what would most people choose? The Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews elevated the "scholar" to the top of the heap.

markod
04-01-19, 21:16
If a question of brawn/beauty vs brains, what would most people choose? The Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews elevated the "scholar" to the top of the heap.

I strongly believe it would be skewed towards former. This is something that's seldom discussed in the IQ/race/HBD blogosphere. I wonder why :grin:

Angela
04-01-19, 21:26
Most men would choose beauty in a woman, imo. Some women would choose wealth or fame in a man first, but a lot of us are also moved by male beauty, which includes a muscular physique. All the money in the world isn't enough to compensate for having to sleep with Bill Gates for the rest of my life.

Heads of families, older and wiser, would choose wealth, which would require intelligence at least in some members of the family. A lot of evolutionary hypotheses are built on the mistaken assumption, imo, that people really had much of a choice throughout human history. Of course, as long as it was outside of marriage, men had more choice, so beauty in women could be argued to be more adaptive, I suppose.

CrazyDonkey
06-01-19, 00:33
Well, beauty is physical attractiveness - basically symmetry and youth, as a sign of health and fecundity. While some families might have chosen a bride based on her dowry (how many goats she brought with her, for instance), in most cases, I suspect they were just looking for good breeding stock and a skillful pair of hands. The dowry was largely balanced out, if not outweighed, by the bride price. One theory is that competition for brides in a polygamous society, inflating their price, helped fuel the steppe migrations.

Brawn, while it can be inclusive of beauty (Adonis), is something more than mere muscles, although stature (or height) might be part of it. In the broader sense, it implies the demonstration of some form of physical prowess, whether in battle or cattle raiding. By "virtue" was meant the valor and bravery of the warrior, or vir.

Beauty/Brawn and brains aren't necessarily antithetical, but having both, in any abundance, is the rare exception, not the rule. In practice, selecting one implies de-selecting the other to some degree. In the general run of society, average intelligence is probably more important than high intelligence.

ΠΑΝΑΞ
13-01-19, 01:27
Depends on a scale of time. In millions of years or even hundred thousands there is a definite improvement in human/hominids intelligence. Last 100 thousand years maybe less so, thought most likely there is a measurable difference in intelligence between farmers and hunter gatherers. If there is, that means that there was a boost in intelligence during last 10 thousand years, when many hunter groups developed farming, and later developed civilizations.

Well, thanks for that. you inspired me.Actually
If I would try to approach the question, I also would start from the same point. It looks like a great transition to other dimensions of conscience or in other words smartness;

ΠΑΝΑΞ
13-01-19, 01:29
( "the first thought")
The hunter must be fast, think fast and act faster, while there isn't many things to plan for tommorow you have to be ready to grab; seize every opportunity will arise, and that decision must happen... Now!
I would just say that the "first thought" it was crucial for our evolution and up to a certain aspect nothing would guaranteed our survival, -except brains- even if we were the "big guys" of the team.

keyphrase: Do it now! Do it without know or how... (the leader, the pioneer, the inventor)
keyword: Athlos.
frame of: tens & hundreds people


( "the second; thought")
The farmer had to be more patient; not that hunter lack these ability, but if I would dare to say as an analogy, that would be like the runners of 100m and the marathon or even better the supermarathon runners.
At that point of time, to be more patient and taking decisions under "political" terms was crucial. There is a long -term- planning and the benefits are not visible at first sight, but we inspired from our-maybe;- future goals. (agiculture;) We begun to appreciate the "second thought", with all the risks and benefits that bears. An intention, that served the objectification of the ideal for all the commoners and our momentaries pax pauses, against ours civil wars.
The food processing produce/convert/consume goes hand by hand with the social transformations.
The second thought maybe is also a "regret;" but as well a mature bright thought.


keyphrase: Wait, wait for the momentum, we know -some;how to do it... (religion ,the diplomacy, politics,)
keyword: Mythos
frame of: hundrends to thousands


( "the third thought")
At all ages the archetype of the fighter (tactical or not) was present at all times of the humans -in depth- ages.
The human as well the societies they transformate, and violence was a major factor that shaped our societies, as also the meta-traumatic experiances that accompanied the survivors. The "War" inside/outside, spiritual/physical,
me Vs me or me Vs others, never stopped and our collective conscience is filling with "experiences".
Descendants of that are the wise, the mature experienced persona, the philosopher and kinda alike guys. The polemic spirit is still not absent and the "verbal violence" is part of pre-mentioned experiances.
At the high peak of this irony we have to remember Socrates prepared us with the unexpected, he surprized us with his knowledge and how smart..; he died.


keyphrase: Maybe, we know a lot of things... except the unpredicted. (philosophy)
keyword: Ethos
frame of: thousands to hundred of thousands to millions;


All these "ages" ( the allegory of the thoughts) are recorded in us, and all are a part from the same chain. Every part of the system has the seeds of re-lift, re-form, trans-form, "prepare" the new conditions for a new age that arises. We have enough loaded "experience" heritated, physically/mentally. From that point propably I would say that: Yes,We are far smarter compare past ages but the issue still remains...
Actually, what if someone being smart is about; -If all the others are fools; -Who will noticed ?


continued...

ΠΑΝΑΞ
13-01-19, 18:53
There are a lot of forms of inteligence and the issue is more complex, if we account the needs and challenges of the different eras which ignite the causes of our evolution.
I dare to say that in a parallel analogy of the above Ages, which mentioned as "thoughts" are proceeding at a vertical axis. An other example and interesting triplet but this time at horizontal axis, is at Homers Illiad:
Who was the smarter, -Odysseus, Palamedes, or Nestor ? - for example.
The one returned home relatively difficult, the other died dishounoured under conspiracy, and the last returned relatively easy.


While the first (as thoughts)are part of our collequial heritage, the second its the case about the individual aspect of the theme.
How different personalities respond to critical issues under stressfull conditions.
Maybe for various reasons is not the perfect example,-at least for the era we are talking- for the reason that: Being so"smart" it is not the best skill which if not disgraced, at least some features of it considered as second class (Μήτις). Being brave is the absolut criteria of the case, and the grand prize is the Fame.
A lot men fall under the great walls of Troy but few the names we remember...


Τhere many words for "smartness" to remind us, as well that there are many kinds of it ,at many languages I suppose, but the modern version of being "smart" is relatively new, I would say is -one of- the foundation stone of the Industrial Revolution; Smart phones, cars, gadgets, fabrics etc etc. Which certainly the smart has the mean of "functional".
Today we are experiencing the third; or fourth age of that revolution; If iam not wrong we are leaving us behind the post-modern and we are heading to a new, unnamed at the moment -widely accepted- to described the socially symbiotic consequenceses with the so famous AI devices.
But that is the concept of the "fourth thought" and the five horses of apocalypse... Which I will deploy maybe later.


I consider that behind that tricky guestion, -if inteligence is hereditary....etc. -the core issue is, that: if genes; or enviroment;-are responsible for the "smartness event" and to what scale.
I also consider that to define what smart is, its an other subject as well that: at what level, that smartness inherited.

At a parallel analogy of inteligence, is the case of having the good looks -other words beauty. I will avoid the word physical appearence because physical-parts- are the brains; also. Anyway, both cases are inherited from our ancestors we like it or not, but in the case of beauty we clearly -objectivelly- we have to deal with the fact that:
Two -very- beautifull parents, do not necessery having beautifull children. Allthough all our physical appearence is absolut result of our parents.
if intelligence is heritated and as a result is determined -somehow;- from dna, as well the physical beauty, maybe is not necessery Intelligent parents to have intelligent kids.
Anyway sometimes I have the feeling that "enviroment" is the 51% factor of all cases.

bigblob
14-01-19, 10:39
In the olden days, men and women with high status were not likely to marry people with low status. Some families like the DeRothchilds, married family members to keep their money within the family.

As for the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, it could be that they also married family members keeping their genes for high intelligence within their group. Also, Ashkenazi Jews have a tradition of wanting their children to achieve high goals. They make it possible for their kids succeed in their chosen field.

Iv read intelligence comes from three sources. Genetic, environment and tradition.

Archetype0ne
29-01-19, 15:22
In a sense it depends what we constitute as Intelligence. If by Intelligence we mean ability to perform in analytical puzzles, akin to an IQ test, then not only are we getting smarter, but we are getting smarter at an exponential rate.

However, I would attribute the major factor to a, lets say "global" zeitgeist and consensus on what is Intelligence. Hence our education systems framework on natural sciences and reading comprehension along with problem solving has been the biggest contributor to this exponential rise in "testing ability".

Furthermore it should be noted that comparing histographic data using IQ as a parameter does not really work, not even in principle. Since by definition the average IQ at any given time is 100. Yet it should be obvious to any observer that in 2019 the average 8th grader is better equipped to solve an IQ test than his equivalent in 1919, to say the least(Not sure when IQ was even coined). However, ultimately I suspect the nature of what we define as Intelligence is very arbitrary.