Intelligence If intelligence is hereditary, why aren't we all smarter?

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...
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.
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:
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.
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.
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;

( "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 ?

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.
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.
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.

This thread has been viewed 18429 times.