Smart ancient people

[Expredel]

Wouldn't it mean that we got smarter with brain shrinkage?

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

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

 

[Templar]

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

 

[Melancon]

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

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

 

[Melancon]

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

I am not sure I understand this assessment. It seems a bit discriminatory though. But I will let you and other people here judge for themselves.

 

[skaheen15]

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

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

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

 

[skaheen15]

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

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

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

 

[LeBrok]

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

That's correct. If only size matters we would have heads the size of beer kegs. The bigger the better, right?

 

[skaheen15]

That's correct. If only size matters we would have heads the size of beer kegs. The bigger the better, right?

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

 

[skaheen15]

I think population explosion and an easy life leads to a dysgenic trend in the long run.

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

 

[LeBrok]

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

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

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

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

 

[skaheen15]

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

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

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

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

 

[LeBrok]

IQ tests are complete nonsense and are only a measure of intellectual capacity; not mental functioning.

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

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

Having a high IQ doesn't measure intelligence; it only shows what a big nerd you are and how much useless information you've acquired. People who brag about having high IQs are usually just big geeks stroking their egos.

You are mixing memory with logical thinking. There are IQ tests based solely on pattern recognition without need of learning words or much at all.

 

[LeBrok]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think that Templar used Paleolithic HGs as an example because they're the furthest thing from what we are today.

Yes, he used them as farthest in time to us, but surprisingly they might be a closer to us in many aspects of life, closer than farmers were. How we share and support our group members, equality, socialism.

 

[Melancon]

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

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

You are mixing memory with logical thinking. There are IQ tests based solely on pattern recognition without need of learning words or much at all.

Uh, I actually meant it had more to do with the lack of development and education in countries such as Africa. Not biologically.

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

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

 

[Melancon]

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

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



There are smart and dumb people of all races.

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


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

 

[Expredel]

There are smart and dumb people of all races.

There are tall and short people of all races as well, what are you trying to insinuate?

 

[Melancon]

There are tall and short people of all races as well, what are you trying to insinuate?

You completely missed the point.

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

 

[LeBrok]

Uh, I actually meant it had more to do with the lack of development and education in countries such as Africa. Not biologically.

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

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

The last time I checked intellect is intelligence.

 

[LeBrok]

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



There are smart and dumb people of all races.

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


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

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

 

[Maleth]

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

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

Here is another good example:-

First computer


thousands of times more efficient then first computer :-