3 ms·
> Hunter-gatherers were much healthier But probably not smarter in the way we think of intelligence. They didn't develop civilisation, agriculturalists did.
by dejb 16y ago
> Hunter-gatherers were much healthier
But probably not smarter in the way we think of intelligence. They didn't develop civilisation, agriculturalists did.
- rubashov 16y ago> They didn't develop civilisation They didn't make very many durable stone structures. That's about all we know. The complexity and quality of their societies may have generally exceeded ours. We do know they had transcontinental trading routes and fairly advanced astronomy, in Europe at least.
- dmm 16y agoSo your hypothesis is that what differentiates agriculturists and hunter-gatherers is intelligence? That's an extremely strong statement. Do you have any proof of significant differences in human intelligence amongst populations? Basically I'm saying you're full of shit. You should read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". It was written by someone who took the time to research the issue and develop some convincing arguments.
- TheSOB88 16y agoHow about share some of the more convincing of those arguments?
- dmm 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error "In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors." Look for it and you see it everywhere.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- protomyth 16y agoCan you explain how the Mongols fit with this statement?
- chunkbot 16y agoThat's a convincing argument that higher population density improves collective intelligence, but says less about the individual.