Immigration The sad reality of heritable cognitive differences vs. immigration policies

[LeBrok]

Possible, but I'd bet against this hypothesis. Farmer lifestyle was characterized by monotonous work and poor nutrition.

Really? Is this the reason why they had few times bigger population than HGs?
Monotonous perhaps is not for you or me, but it has some good side. It can make you to plow fields, memorize material, train new skills hours after hours. I don't have statistics, but on the other end of this scale, I bet, that obsessive-compulsive and workaholic is rather a farmer trait, not hunter gatherer. East Asian may top stats in this department. Monotonous is not necessarily mindless, and not necessarily bad.
Anyway, I think that the big difference is with our evolutionary past. You see, no matter how good or bad the hunter was the spoils was always shared equally among the members. The smart and the stupid had similar chance to survive. Well, almost. In farming society every family works for themselves. If they have smart mother and father this gives kids much greater chance to survive and propagate smart genes. Unlike family of stupid farmers. Population is much greater than HGs which also speeds up natural selection.
Even if I'm wrong and same natural forcings prefer smart members in HGs and Farming societies, there might be another explanation. Usually farmers are 10 times more numerous than hunters, therefore will get 10 more positive mutations by chance, and progress 10 times faster towards this goal. Now take 10 thousand of years of this trend and we should see the difference in intelligence. And I guess we do.

Every modern country with population of hunter gatherers have problem with them adopting to farming or modern city living. On other hand Jewish emigrants from poor Russian siolo, knowing nothing more than poor farming existence and no english, adopted easily to life in America or Canada and ended up in middle and upper class of society very quickly, and this against antisemitism. These are extreme examples but very telling.

 

[epoch]

You mean the Finns who got least initial farmer genes in Europe topping Euro average IQ list?

Doesn't matter if they have the least, they have all the good ones. Yes, I can't claim that all the hunter gatherers have lower intelligence, learning skills and weaker memory, but generally it is the case. Do you have any info or stats how HGs of Russian North are doing in school and modern life in general? I'm curious.

We do have some evidence HGs were smarter. The human brain size decreases over time. Brain sizes of Upper Paleolithic HGs were noticeable larger:

Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

 

[LeBrok]

We do have some evidence HGs were smarter. The human brain size decreases over time. Brain sizes of Upper Paleolithic HGs were noticeable larger:



http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

Actually it only proves that their brains were bigger, that's it. Surprisingly there were more new inventions with brain shrinkage and time passing by. Did it occur to you that our brains became more efficient with time? Isn't it what evolution is about?

By your analogy cellphones of 80s were better and faster than today's. I'd say they were just bigger.

A crow (bird) is more intelligent than a cow, though its brain is so much smaller. By this example we can see that brains can get more efficient, intelligence or memory efficient, to its volume.

 

[epoch]

Actually it only proves that their brains were bigger, that's it. Surprisingly there were more new inventions with brain shrinkage and time passing by. Did it occur to you that our brains became more efficient with time? Isn't it what evolution is about?

By your analogy cellphones of 80s were better and faster than today's. I'd say they were just bigger.

A crow (bird) is more intelligent than a cow, though its brain is so much smaller. By this example we can see that brains can get more efficient, intelligence or memory efficient, to its volume.

The size of a brains is directly correlated to its hosts size. So we need to adjust for that. [1] But after that adjustment relative size to body in current day humans correlates roughly to intelligence. A improved efficiency has been suggested, but the burden of proof is upon the ones suggesting such a mechanism, I would say.

These things are why I used the heedful words "some evidence".


[1] The link I provided discusses this.

 

[Angela]

Then why didn't you?

I'm not sure precisely what you're asking. Plus, that's a bit of a personal question.

I'll answer, though, since I feel rather strongly about this topic. Did I have extensive IQ testing done? Yes, they tested both my brother and me. Did we go to extensive drilling clinics after school and on week-ends? No, we didn't. For one thing they didn't exist in our area when I was in high school, for another we didn't have that kind of money when I first went to high school because we hadn't been here very long, and my father was still building his business, and third, I doubt my father would have sent us.

As it turned out, we didn't need them, although I won't go into detail because I despise people who go around telling other people about their scores on the SATs. In terms of school work, I was driven from childhood. I took an A- as a personal insult. My parents would take my books away when it got too late. I can't tell you how often they would say to me, just do your best, you don't have to be perfect all the time. What's in your nature is in your nature, though. I can still obsess about making the perfect meal or having the perfect roses in my garden.

As for these clinics for children that now exist, particularly in urban areas with significant numbers of East and South Asian immigrants, I'm totally opposed to them. There was a book published recently here in the U.S. called "The Tiger Mom", written by an East Asian mother highlighting the regimen under which her children lived. We have some right in my neighborhood...hours of homework, hours of after school and week end clinics, the only time not spent on academics or drilling spent on drilling on a musical instrument...no sports, no clubs, virtually no social life, no tv, no time to just dream, for God's sake. I think it's a form of child abuse. If it doesn't drive them to suicide or quiet madness, it produces, in my opinion, people with no social skills and no ability to be creative or think outside the box. Plus, it doesn't foster any leadership qualities whatsoever. As my parents understood ahead of their time, there has to be a balance.

If your child needs some extra help with one subject or another, help them yourself or pay for the occasional tutor, but this? Absolutely not. They need to socialize, they need to play sports for health reasons, for mental health, and for learning team work. The most important thing, however, in my opinion, is that you do everything you can to help your children develop into kind, honest, hard working, well-adjusted people with a capacity to love and be loved, and who are making the most of what my teachers used to call their God given gifts, whatever they may be, and to whatever level they have them.

 

[arvistro]

Doesn't matter if they have the least, they have all the good ones. Yes, I can't claim that all the hunter gatherers have lower intelligence, learning skills and weaker memory, but generally it is the case. Do you have any info or stats how HGs of Russian North are doing in school and modern life in general? I'm curious.

Google gave me this for eskimos iq. First result:
The Inuit children obtained a mean IQ of 106 in relation to a white mean of 100.

 

[Angela]

Google gave me this for eskimos iq. First result:
The Inuit children obtained a mean IQ of 106 in relation to a white mean of 100.

It must be all the fish they eat!

Seriously, where did you get that stat, Arvistro? The first two articles that came up on google search listed it as 91. Of course, the usual caveats apply. I don't know what measures were used or who did it. If it's Lynn, I automatically discount the results. It's like when you get an "expert" witness on the stand in a courtroom. Once you've shown they've lied, or "shaved the truth", or used shoddy practices, nothing else they ever say can be trusted.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/indians-arent-that-intelligent-on-average

Speaking of Lynn:
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1280412201/iq-of-mongolians

 

[arvistro]

Sorry, I literary took first info in Google and it was about visual memory only. And yeah Lynn.
Next article gives 91 which is below South Euros at 93. Not that bad considering lack of smart genes in eskimos
Uralics according same source run at 96. Must be the selected Good portion of farmer genetics.

 

[LeBrok]

The size of a brains is directly correlated to its hosts size. So we need to adjust for that. [1] But after that adjustment relative size to body in current day humans correlates roughly to intelligence. A improved efficiency has been suggested, but the burden of proof is upon the ones suggesting such a mechanism, I would say.

These things are why I used the heedful words "some evidence".


[1] The link I provided discusses this.

Isn't it look strange to you that with our shrinking brains, therefore less intelligent, we have build civilizations, and technological civilization, unlike smarter than us UP hunter gatherers. Don't you see the clues?
Other clue is that in nature all things get more efficient due to natural selection with time. Wouldn't 30k years show any improvement? We should be surprised if it didn't, especially for the most important organ for human, brain.
Einstein brain was way smarter than average but not bigger. How is it possible?

[FONT=&quot]In addition, the [/FONT]cc[FONT=&quot] of the great physicist Albert Einstein was 1,230 cm[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3[/FONT][FONT=&quot], considerably less than the average size for an adult (Anderson and Harvey, [/FONT]1996[FONT=&quot]). The Einstein ratio was 1.64 (1.23/75) and the EQ was 5.76, lower than those for the average adult male. Anderson and Harvey point out that Einstein’s cortex was thinner than normal, but the density of neurons was larger. Thus, more neurons were located in a smaller space.[/FONT]

And in fact Einstein's brain weighed 1500 grams to average 1400g. Smaller brain but greater density of neurons.

 

[Angela]

Sorry, I literary took first info in Google and it was about visual memory only. And yeah Lynn.
Next article gives 91 which is below South Euros at 93. Not that bad considering lack of smart genes in eskimos
Uralics according same source run at 96. Must be the selected Good portion of farmer genetics.

Arvistro, has this somehow become personal for you? I'm sorry if any of this has come across as insulting toward any group of people. That was never my intention, and I'm equally sure it wasn't LeBrok's. We're talking about possible evolutionary trends thousands and thousands of years ago.

Let's assume only for the sake of argument that farming selected not for intelligence, but rather perhaps selected for perseverance and the ability to sit still and do the monotonous work of mastering certain subjects. There are quite a few papers that hypothesize that the particularly monotonous work of rice farming has something to do with the high "IQ" scores for East Asians. (I hasten to add that that I think this is still very much at the hypothetical level.)

Once those genes get into other populations, and if there is selection for them in that setting as well, their frequency will increase. Isn't that how evolution works? If they go at low levels into a population that still is mostly hunting and gathering, I don't think much selection would necessarily go on for them, would it?

Now, South Euros at 93? Some of the scores posted even by that charlatan Lynn have Italians at 103 and 105 for some years. (Other tests given at other times have come in lower, which is just another indication of how unreliable these measures are.) He did give lower scores for southern Italians when he supposedly used standardized test scores for them. Some of those highest scores were from Milanese school children. Some one neglected to inform him, or he preferred to ignore it for the sake of his agenda, but at least half of the children in those public schools have ancestry from southern Italy, and another chunk are from third world countries. So, what would be the score for "native" northern Italians, 115, like the Ashkenazim? Perhaps he also didn't know that it's pretty widely acknowledged in Italy that many of the schools (although not all) in southern Italy are inferior to the ones in the center and north, and that explains the lower scores in the former.

As for scores in the low to mid 90's, perhaps you might want to look at some of the scores he and others provide for the Irish, some eastern Europeans, etc. Are those accurate as well? Or is it possible that in poor countries like Ireland (at least until relatively recently) or poor regions (like southern Italy) people with higher intellectual ability are among the first to emigrate to other places and that might be a confounding factor?

Then factor in nutrition and parental attitudes toward education and school work. It's all just more complicated than these kinds of "researchers" are willing to admit.

Far better, in my opinion, to just give children the best possible education and then give them the opportunity to use it rather than spending time in making odious comparisons between members of one group versus another based on standardized testing of school subjects. As I've said ad nauseam, I don't think those tests necessarily measure real "IQ".

 

[LeBrok]

Sorry, I literary took first info in Google and it was about visual memory only. And yeah Lynn.
Next article gives 91 which is below South Euros at 93. Not that bad considering lack of smart genes in eskimos
Uralics according same source run at 96. Must be the selected Good portion of farmer genetics.

I can see you are still very sceptical. Tell us then what is your explanation to all modern HGs having difficulty adapting to farmers and modern world? It should be easy like for me and you. Learn stuff at skull and do the same, right?
And by the way. How come you believe IQ score differences between Europeans but you have a hard time imagine that it might be exactly so among other ethnicities and races in the world?
As Angela noted, that for you and some others, this became personal quest of saving HGs intelligence, because of big part of their ancestry in you.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I can see you are still very sceptical. Tell us then what is your explanation to all modern HGs having difficulty adapting to farmers and modern world? It should be easy like for me and you. Learn stuff at skull and do the same, right?
And by the way. How come you believe IQ score differences between Europeans but you have a hard time imagine that it might be exactly so among other ethnicities and races in the world?
As Angela noted, that for you and some others, this became personal quest of saving HGs intelligence, because of big part of their ancestry in you.

I told you before, it has nothing to do with intelligence, farmers and HG simply have a different mindset.
No, this is your personal quest for superior farmers intelligence.

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Lebrok,

There are logical explanations as to why hunter gatherers today have a hard time in school. They may go to poor funded schools with poorly trained teachers, they may have bad family/community infkuenes(like alcoholism in Native Americans), and so on. Lots comes into play besides genetics.

Self motivation, the ability to motivate yourself, is the best tool for success in school. School is kike a full time job and it is ridiculously boring/non-eventfful, so it is difficult for everyone to force themselves to work and stay focused. Some are genetically predestined to do that better but everyone can do it. For some people their circumstances make it much more difficult to do it, because of lack of good adult leadership/advise or fear of peer issues(fear of being nerdy).

 

[LeBrok]

I told you before, it has nothing to do with intelligence, farmers and HG simply have a different mindset.
No, this is your personal quest for superior farmers intelligence.

I've forgot YOU told me that, lol.
Is mindset genetic or nurtured?

 

[LeBrok]

@Lebrok,

There are logical explanations as to why hunter gatherers today have a hard time in school. They may go to poor funded schools with poorly trained teachers,

Come on, in all the countries from Canada to Russia, through Austrualia and through hundreds of years? That many bad teachers and education programs? But somehow this didn't discourage poor uneducated Jews from Eastern Europe being super successful.

they may have bad family/community infkuenes(like alcoholism in Native Americans), and so on. Lots comes into play besides genetics.

Big part of alcoholism is genetic. I just came back from Zihuatanejo in Mexico. Lot of pure natives there. I didn't see them drunk, but working hard instead. Could be the difference that natives of Mexico were already farmers when Spaniards came?

IQ tests or genetic tests or not, there are obvious clues and trends to point us in the right direction. One just needs a statistical mind.

 

[arvistro]

I can see you are still very sceptical. Tell us then what is your explanation to all modern HGs having difficulty adapting to farmers and modern world? It should be easy like for me and you. Learn stuff at skull and do the same, right?

I am not adapted to farming. Too abstract mindset for anything remotely practical. Thank God, modern world accepts me and pays me well for applying math models and stuff.

As to modern HGs. I dont think there is one reason. Like low IQ. Alcohol is a big part of question.

And by the way. How come you believe IQ score differences between Europeans but you have a hard time imagine that it might be exactly so among other ethnicities and races in the world?

I dont have hard time.
One should control for external factors (such as race) when trying to capture the impact of isolated factor (say farming) on outcome (say on population IQ). It does not work for Euros and their Neolithic genes proportion. It possibly works for East Asians. Chinese are smarter than their neighbors. Need to check if farming neighbors of them are smarter than non-farming neighbors of them. If so, then the smartness of Arctic North/Uralics might have to do with Chinese neolithic genes that spread North. Possibility? Perhaps.
Not sure if it works for different SSA populations. Not sure if it works for different native ams.

As Angela noted, that for you and some others, this became personal quest of saving HGs intelligence, because of big part of their ancestry in you.

Perhaps. If I was black, I would just want to do something bad to all people writing there. Especially if I was a smart black person. And I am not entirely sure if within-group variance in IQ is not way more higher than between-group variance to be fair.

As abstract person I dont have issues to admit myself wrong, when data show I am wrong.

If it will be proved that those were Chinese Neolithic genes that spread around high IQ in those populations, I will accept. If however those Northern folk were genetically developed before Chinese Neolithic, then apparently there is something else in play than farming per se to explain IQ differences.

 

[LeBrok]

I am not adapted to farming. Too abstract mindset for anything remotely practical. Thank God, modern world accepts me and pays me well for applying math models and stuff.

Are you presenting yourself as pure Lithuanian hunter gatherer?

As to modern HGs. I dont think there is one reason. Like low IQ. Alcohol is a big part of question.

I'm not sure what are you trying to say. Actually, one interesting side of bigger HG admixtures in Europeans is increased alcohol consumptions, binge drinking and addiction.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...n-Europe-goes-up-with-increased-ANE-admixture

I dont have hard time.
One should control for external factors (such as race) when trying to capture the impact of isolated factor (say farming) on outcome (say on population IQ). It does not work for Euros and their Neolithic genes proportion. It possibly works for East Asians. Chinese are smarter than their neighbors. Need to check if farming neighbors of them are smarter than non-farming neighbors of them. If so, then the smartness of Arctic North/Uralics might have to do with Chinese neolithic genes that spread North. Possibility? Perhaps.

As I mentioned before on individual bases you can find many hunter gatherers who finished schools and blended in modern societies. I'm sure I mentioned couple of times that I'm talking in general terms about groups, tribes and ethnicities. The average, the statistical hunter gatherer. On individual bases you can find many "farmers" not fitting their societies too.

Not sure if it works for different SSA populations. Not sure if it works for different native ams.

SSA if very mixed. We have ethnicities who farmed for long time, we have pure hunter gatherers and tribes in transition. Very old and very complicated continent. South America is more transparent. We have clear cut farmers in Central America, Mayans, Incas and probably Azteks. They were farmers in pre columbian times, they farm now and live and run many modern cities too. Yes, they mixed with Spanish but not in huge proportion I believe, and there are places with pure indigenous people still. Then you have clear cut hunter gatherers in North America and Amazon Jungle. These guys didn't farm, don't want to farm and don't manage well in cities either. Generally, speaking of course.

As abstract person I dont have issues to admit myself wrong, when data show I am wrong.

Ah, this is an easy way. Unfortunately there is not much valid data and lack of research due to this touchy racially charged subject. Use your abstract mind to pull conclusions from few available real life clues. Now, this really take skills. Well, maybe more of statistical mind than abstract one, but really taxing good detective skills.

If it will be proved that those were Chinese Neolithic genes that spread around high IQ in those populations, I will accept. If however those Northern folk were genetically developed before Chinese Neolithic, then apparently there is something else in play than farming per se to explain IQ differences.

I think East Asian component was rising in Central Asia after Chinese Neolithic. It is a good chance that it was due to spread of numerous farming folks. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with ancient history of East Asia, never mind their genetics. Yamnaya steppe explosion happened after mixing with farmers, we know that. They took to farming and herding, grew in numbers and exploded through Eurasia. Pure hunter gatherers could never build up such numbers.

 

[bicicleur 2]

let some mesolithic HG and some neolithic farmer take an IQ test
both will have IQ 0
both can't read nor write, nor will they understand anything about the test

 

[LeBrok]

let some mesolithic HG and some neolithic farmer take an IQ test
both will have IQ 0
both can't read nor write, nor will they understand anything about the test

How hard is to imagine that you could ask them the questions orally, granted you could speak their language? Now, when you already evoke our ability to travel in time, it is not less impossible to build schools and try to teach them subjects from our times, or bring them here to our times and put in our schools. After a decade or so we can run same written tests for all.
I have more practical idea, let's put existing hunter gatherers (the closest proxy of mesolithic ones) in schools and test them. Oh wait, it was done already. How are they doing in our schools? Right. This is one of the clues I'm talking about. Put them togeeeeeeeether...

 

[epoch]

Other clue is that in nature all things get more efficient due to natural selection with time. Wouldn't 30k years show any improvement? We should be surprised if it didn't, especially for the most important organ for human, brain.

See Flores man as example of the opposite.

Einstein brain was way smarter than average but not bigger. How is it possible?
And in fact Einstein's brain weighed 1500 grams to average 1400g. Smaller brain but greater density of neurons.

I didn't say it was a settled case. Maybe it is true that thing got wired better. But really, this is n=1 and brain size appears to roughly correlate with IQ.
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter