3 ms·

Looking for the monoliths? Jokes aside, probably not much. Biological classifications don't imply sameness. You don't get anatomically modern humans until 30,00

by rjf72 7y ago

Looking for the monoliths? Jokes aside, probably not much. Biological classifications don't imply sameness. You don't get anatomically modern humans until 30,000-50,000 years ago. Even that doesn't tell you much about cognitive ability. Think about something like the Flynn Effect [1]. In the past century real IQ scores rose by more than a standard deviation throughout most of the world. That means a person of perfectly mean intelligence today would be more intelligent, so far as IQ can measure, than 84% of people from a century ago. And over thousands of years? Of course now the Flynn Effect seems to have reversed in most developed nations with us becoming literally less intelligent, again so far as IQ can measure. The point is that even in a time frame of a single century you're looking at very radical changes in intellectual ability between populations that would appear, on the surface, to be practically 100% identical. When you start talking about tens of thousands of years ago, it's impossible to do even begin to intelligently speculate based on anything other than achievement. And what did we achieve? As you mention, not much. And so the only justifiable explanation is that we probably didn't have that much going on upstairs until relatively recently. I think the most interesting question is a direct spin off of yours. What triggered the intellectual spike? Was it in any way related to whatever caused the more contemporary spikes in intelligence? Why are IQs now decreasing and can global intellect fade away as rapidly as it emerged? Probably the most depressing possible solution to the Fermi paradox! [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

lkrubner 7y ago
This is a bizarre thing to write: "You don't get anatomically modern humans until 30,000-50,000 years ago." And this is wild speculation without any basis: "And so the only justifiable explanation is that we probably didn't have that much going on upstairs until relatively recently." Economic development is complex, it depends on a lot more than IQ. As a point of comparison, we could ask why did the Industrial Revolution only happened 200 years ago? If, as you suggest, homo sapiens have had high IQ for 50,000 years, then why didn't we have the Industrial Revolution much sooner? But more so, you seem to imply, in response to the original article, that the mixing of homo species helped us develop a certain kind of IQ. But according to that theory, the most advanced people on Earth should be the aborigines of Australia, as they were the first group to mix with all the different homo species, as sapiens moved from Africa to Australia. But in fact, the aborigines of Australia were quite content with their lives, and felt no need to build civilizations, even though they certainly have high IQ, and they have the mix of genes you'd expect of humans outside of Africa. About this: "What triggered the intellectual spike?" There was no spike in IQ. You have no reason to believe that. The development of culture and civilization have nothing to do with IQ. Large parts of the world remained completely primitive until recent centuries, even though those regions were full of high IQ homo sapiens. I can't tell if you are trying to build a racial theory of history, but if you are, that idea has been debunked many times. All I can do is recommend that you read some of that debunking.
- rjf72 7y ago
  The period I'm referencing with 30,000-50,000 years ago is known as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. This is where a very large number of things happened nearly simultaneously. Homo sapien began to interbreed with various other species, and they took on the anatomical form we mostly have today. In specimens prior to this period you generally find substantial anatomical differences such as thicker bones, larger canines, etc. But most importantly of all this is where you find the first clear evidence of intelligence which rapidly expand outward: art, ceremonial burials, clear evidence of fishing, and much more. Some time after that you start to see the beginning of modern civilization with bladed weapons, pottery, agriculture, and so on. This is also one of the most likely time periods for the development of language, though that is something that is hotly debated. I'm going to dodge the second part of your post for the sake of trying to keep the conversation on the up and up. If you have some clear message you'd like to convey, I'd be happy to get into that. It's a fun topic. However, please do drop the ad hominem.
  - lkrubner 7y ago
    There is nothing ad hominem about my question. I don’t know you. For all I know you are an 18 year old who is simply repeating alt-right conspiracies that you read on 4chan. I do think it is interesting that you avoided answering my question. You avoided responding to anything I wrote. Ian Tattersall published a study suggesting that homo sapiens left Africa between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago. Sapiens reached Indonesia 70,000 years ago, and Australia by 50,000 years ago. I’m not sure if you’ve ever thought about the implications of what you are saying, but if you honestly believe that all of the cultural innovations of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, happening north of the Sahara, in the Levant and across Eurasia, are due to biological change, then you are saying that the the people who were left behind in Sub-Saharan Africa are not fully human. That is a popular argument with racists. I’m not accusing you of being a racist, but I am asking you if that is seriously the argument you are trying to make. There are some other types of argument, similar to yours, that I've run into online. Some people insist that humans were genetically engineered by aliens. That argument is based on no evidence, though it does have the nice property that is not raced based. Some other people make a religious and/or spiritual argument, arguing that there is a universal consciousness and that it spread across the world 50,000 years ago. That has all the problems of any religious argument -- it could be true, but there is no evidence and no way to prove it. What I am asking is what type of argument are you making? Are you making a racial argument? Or do you believe in aliens? Or do you think some kind of god is responsible? Or are you willing to consider what I've suggested, that economic and cultural development is complex, and can not be easily mapped back to biological changes?

by rjf72 7y ago

lkrubner 7y ago

This is a bizarre thing to write: "You don't get anatomically modern humans until 30,000-50,000 years ago." And this is wild speculation without any basis: "And so the only justifiable explanation is that we probably didn't have that much going on upstairs until relatively recently." Economic development is complex, it depends on a lot more than IQ. As a point of comparison, we could ask why did the Industrial Revolution only happened 200 years ago? If, as you suggest, homo sapiens have had high IQ for 50,000 years, then why didn't we have the Industrial Revolution much sooner? But more so, you seem to imply, in response to the original article, that the mixing of homo species helped us develop a certain kind of IQ. But according to that theory, the most advanced people on Earth should be the aborigines of Australia, as they were the first group to mix with all the different homo species, as sapiens moved from Africa to Australia. But in fact, the aborigines of Australia were quite content with their lives, and felt no need to build civilizations, even though they certainly have high IQ, and they have the mix of genes you'd expect of humans outside of Africa. About this: "What triggered the intellectual spike?" There was no spike in IQ. You have no reason to believe that. The development of culture and civilization have nothing to do with IQ. Large parts of the world remained completely primitive until recent centuries, even though those regions were full of high IQ homo sapiens. I can't tell if you are trying to build a racial theory of history, but if you are, that idea has been debunked many times. All I can do is recommend that you read some of that debunking.

rjf72 7y ago
The period I'm referencing with 30,000-50,000 years ago is known as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. This is where a very large number of things happened nearly simultaneously. Homo sapien began to interbreed with various other species, and they took on the anatomical form we mostly have today. In specimens prior to this period you generally find substantial anatomical differences such as thicker bones, larger canines, etc. But most importantly of all this is where you find the first clear evidence of intelligence which rapidly expand outward: art, ceremonial burials, clear evidence of fishing, and much more. Some time after that you start to see the beginning of modern civilization with bladed weapons, pottery, agriculture, and so on. This is also one of the most likely time periods for the development of language, though that is something that is hotly debated. I'm going to dodge the second part of your post for the sake of trying to keep the conversation on the up and up. If you have some clear message you'd like to convey, I'd be happy to get into that. It's a fun topic. However, please do drop the ad hominem.
- lkrubner 7y ago
  There is nothing ad hominem about my question. I don’t know you. For all I know you are an 18 year old who is simply repeating alt-right conspiracies that you read on 4chan. I do think it is interesting that you avoided answering my question. You avoided responding to anything I wrote. Ian Tattersall published a study suggesting that homo sapiens left Africa between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago. Sapiens reached Indonesia 70,000 years ago, and Australia by 50,000 years ago. I’m not sure if you’ve ever thought about the implications of what you are saying, but if you honestly believe that all of the cultural innovations of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, happening north of the Sahara, in the Levant and across Eurasia, are due to biological change, then you are saying that the the people who were left behind in Sub-Saharan Africa are not fully human. That is a popular argument with racists. I’m not accusing you of being a racist, but I am asking you if that is seriously the argument you are trying to make. There are some other types of argument, similar to yours, that I've run into online. Some people insist that humans were genetically engineered by aliens. That argument is based on no evidence, though it does have the nice property that is not raced based. Some other people make a religious and/or spiritual argument, arguing that there is a universal consciousness and that it spread across the world 50,000 years ago. That has all the problems of any religious argument -- it could be true, but there is no evidence and no way to prove it. What I am asking is what type of argument are you making? Are you making a racial argument? Or do you believe in aliens? Or do you think some kind of god is responsible? Or are you willing to consider what I've suggested, that economic and cultural development is complex, and can not be easily mapped back to biological changes?