Megachange : the world in 2050

[Tyrannical]

Jesus Christ, how can I make so many spelling mistakes.
I blame my phone.

What's the etiquette on that, correcting others spelling mistakes in quotes? And sometimes I just wonder if it's the British spelling

First, I didn't claim that "Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction." I was saying that specific traits for civilised socialisation have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction, certainly beyond the social traits we already had prior to civilisation.

These traits can be tested for, show a high degree of heritability, and there is documented evidence showing racial variations in averages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_p ... ity_traits

So, what's your point? Spit it out man.

Hmmm, I misunderstood your sentence so I didn't directly address your point. But as for prior to civilization, certain groups never developed civilization. There are correlations between those behaviors and intelligence.

The claim that traits for intelligence and social interaction were selected for a very long time ago:

Humans have been living in complex social groups (at the tribal level), generating art, making complex tools, etc. for a very long time. Idk if you've ever had a go at making flint tools, bows, spear-throwers, boomerangs, string, nets or anything else at that level of technology, but I can assure you they require a high degree of intelligence, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities. Yes, you can bash a piece of flint and break off a useful temporary cutting edge, but even the Neanderthal hand-axe requires a complex understanding of the materials and how they are likely to behave in response to your actions than most people nowadays are capable of picking up at all easily... and Neanderthal hand-axes are probably the simplest of the flint objects that can be specifically designated as a certain tool type (as opposed to bashed off flakes). Likewise, bowery, it's a difficult skill to master. You need an understanding of the material and how it is likely to behave beforehand, or you'll just make a bow that will break. Ever tried lighting a fire with pyrites? It's hard, you need to prepare all your materials in advance and know how they'll behave.

All these tasks require a level of intelligence, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities on a par with those of behaviorally modern humans.

And there are even more difficult skills that were mastered, such as shelter building, farming, metallurgy, astronomy, and animal domestication and these skills required a higher intelligence which was selected for.

Since hominids with around a third of our brain size had stone tools, fire, and were hunter gathers over 2M years ago I'd say that more "advanced" technology does require more intelligence. Otherwise we'd still have tiny brains. Those humans that were intelligent enough to invent farming, metallurgy, astronomy, stone working had a competitive group and individual advantage.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushto ... theses.pdf (pg 636)

Evolutionary selection pressures
were different in the hot savanna, where Africans
lived, than in the cold northern regions Europeans
experienced, or the even colder Arctic regions
where East Asians evolved. Thus, the further north
the ancestral populations migrated out of Africa,
the more they encountered the cognitivelydemanding
problems of gathering and storing food,
gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children
successfully during prolonged winters. As
these populations evolved into present-day East
Asians and Europeans, the ecological pressures selected
for larger brains, slower rates of maturation,
and lower levels of sex hormone, and all the
other life-history characteristics.

Wait.... how are shelter building, farming, animal husbandry, metallurgy and building more difficult skills than hunter-gatherer tasks? Even astronomy only requires a greater quantity of passed on knowledge (as opposed to quality). Do you really think that a baby taken from a hunter-gatherer society and brought up in the bronze age would be incapable of learning to smelt ore? Genes for astronomy specific brain cells were never selected for, we just use the general intelligence we already have to do those things.

If Africans are as genetically disabled as you seem to be suggesting, how come they do such a good job at all the practical modern tasks that weren't selection pressures on them in prehistory?

Being able to be learn a previously developed skill is far different than what is needed to invent it.

As for Africans and hunter-gathers, it's all about statistics and averages,and how ability follows a bell curve. Some are capable, but on average far fewer are able to attain a level of ability than certain other groups. It's one of the reasons school dropout is so high, the work is just too hard.

Regarding selection for living in complex social groups occurring long ago.... I'll just say that the fact we've been doing it for so long is (for me) evidence enough that that selection was occurring for that whole time too.... and we've only been living in civilised societies for a fraction of the time that we weren't.


The claim that All human groups are extremely similar in those regards:

As far as I'm aware, all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory. We all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes (in Europe via the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). Whatever the progression, we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers. Our social groups were probably broadly similar in general (though very different in specifics). I don't see much scope for great differences there, and there are only minor and superficial differences in different human groups now.

Nope, and even the biased anti-racist Jared Diamond noted that wasn't true in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

That what wasn't true? That "all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory"? That we "all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes"? That "we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers"? That "social groups were probably broadly similar in general"?

[Tyrannical]

Trannyical seems to think that people only disagree because it's politically correct. Why I can't imagine.
I've had complete contempt for IQ test and the like, long before I'd heard of any of this racial crap.

I've got friends who I KNOW would score abysmally compared to me in tests, but can wee all over me when it comes to life skills. I used to buy and sell cars, and some of the very best traders could hardly even write, but could leave me standing in dealing.

Intelligence isn't just about puzzles etc.

When it comes to inheritance, the notion that REAL differences could evolve in such a short time-frame is ludicrous.
Intelligence levels are one of the LEAST variable features over not just species, but right back to family level.

Can you at least read that? It really does answer all your questions on IQ tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

[mistermack]

Can you at least read that? It really does answer all your questions on IQ tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

I've read stuff like that in the past. And the one you linked has paragraph after paragraph, backing up what I said, and none of it supports the idea that races have any INHERENT difference in intelligence.

You've never answered how IQ scores for groups can alter so much in a short time, have you?
And neither does Wikipedia. But to prove YOUR point, you have to show that populations can EVOLVE a three points higher IQ in a single DECADE.

The average IQ scores for many populations have been rising at an average rate of three points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. It is disputed whether these changes in scores reflect real changes in intellectual abilities.

Whether or not IQ tests are an accurate measure of intelligence is open to debate. It is difficult to define exactly what constitutes intelligence; it may be the case that IQ scores represent a very specific type of intelligence.

[mistermack]

Tyrannical, as you have a theory about IQs for different races, here's mine.

I think that all of the differences between racial groups is down to the traditional way mothers treat their children. Especially when they are extremely young.

In the West, and countries like Japan, people have small families now. Babies are much more at the centre of the family life. They get a lot more attention from a very early age. Parents play more with them, when they are tiny, and all the way as they grow. This has been claimed in many trials to increase the IQ levels in later life.

In Africa, and many third world countries, mothers have many more children. And they have a harder life, and less leisure time. The culture is to interact less with the children when babies, you see it all the time.
And you also see a similar culture in many Afro-American families, and West Indian too. Babies get fed and watered, but don't get the level of interaction that western kids do.

There, that's my new pet theory to explain differences in IQ scores. It's much better than yours.
It fits plenty of facts unlike yours. And I don't have to dodge questions to back it up.

[Pappa]

Since hominids with around a third of our brain size had stone tools, fire, and were hunter gathers over 2M years ago I'd say that more "advanced" technology does require more intelligence. Otherwise we'd still have tiny brains. Those humans that were intelligent enough to invent farming, metallurgy, astronomy, stone working had a competitive group and individual advantage.

Tyrannical, you're muddying the waters here. Anatomically modern humans were hunter-gatherers for the majority of the time they've existed as a distinct species. You're also confusing the ability to invent "farming, metallurgy, astronomy" etc. with it being invented in practice. Some of those skills were just completely unnecessary to hunter-gatherers. And to take one example, Australian Aborigines did invent farming independently, they just chose to only use it to ensure they had regular supplies of Pituri.... they simply didn't require it for food. In many ways agriculture actually puts its practitioners at a competitive disadvantage, but it's almost always a one way street.

And again, I don't see a progression in complexity from hunter-gatherer skills to agrarian skills to civilised skills. Computer programming requires no more intelligence than the kind of flintknapping we see from the neolithic. I've done both and they're equally complex.

Being able to be learn a previously developed skill is far different than what is needed to invent it.

As for Africans and hunter-gathers, it's all about statistics and averages,and how ability follows a bell curve. Some are capable, but on average far fewer are able to attain a level of ability than certain other groups. It's one of the reasons school dropout is so high, the work is just too hard.

That doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. Good luck with your fantasies.

[Blind groper]

There was an article in SciAm a few years back, based on identical twin studies. It concluded that intelligence was roughly a result of 50% genetic and 50% training. So it is possible that IQ differences, as Tyrannical insists, are due to the genetics of race. However, we also know that IQ is very, very variable, and populations grow in their IQ as they adapt to this 21st Century world.

The more reasonable explanation for a lower average IQ for African people is simply that their learning is of a different kind to that of the average white guy (or Asian). An African might be a superb tracker of wild animals he is seeking to hunt, but score badly on an IQ test. Since the IQ test does not measure tracking ability, it does not show that, overall, that African is any less smart than a person who is better at mental manipulation of abstractions.

[JimC]

There was an article in SciAm a few years back, based on identical twin studies. It concluded that intelligence was roughly a result of 50% genetic and 50% training. So it is possible that IQ differences, as Tyrannical insists, are due to the genetics of race. However, we also know that IQ is very, very variable, and populations grow in their IQ as they adapt to this 21st Century world.

The more reasonable explanation for a lower average IQ for African people is simply that their learning is of a different kind to that of the average white guy (or Asian). An African might be a superb tracker of wild animals he is seeking to hunt, but score badly on an IQ test. Since the IQ test does not measure tracking ability, it does not show that, overall, that African is any less smart than a person who is better at mental manipulation of abstractions.

Agreed.

And variations in intellectual ability within a population may well derive significantly from genetic variance within a population without that implying systematic, significant difference between potential cognitive abilities in racial groups.

[macdoc]

Nutrition, epi-genetics, day of the testing, wording of test ( Blink ), cultural background......etc etc and there is no one set metrics that works across all situations.

Bigots will however always try - more's the shame.

•••••

Network via cell tower or satellite will obviate the need for wired lines in many developing nations. The guy that invented Hotmail now has something going with SMS in India that will reach billions.

First worlders are fat lazy and spoiled and the billions that want want we have are clamouring. China's century coming up and the resource nations that feed her, Australia, Canada and much of Africa.

[Tyrannical]

There was an article in SciAm a few years back, based on identical twin studies. It concluded that intelligence was roughly a result of 50% genetic and 50% training. So it is possible that IQ differences, as Tyrannical insists, are due to the genetics of race. However, we also know that IQ is very, very variable, and populations grow in their IQ as they adapt to this 21st Century world.

The more reasonable explanation for a lower average IQ for African people is simply that their learning is of a different kind to that of the average white guy (or Asian). An African might be a superb tracker of wild animals he is seeking to hunt, but score badly on an IQ test. Since the IQ test does not measure tracking ability, it does not show that, overall, that African is any less smart than a person who is better at mental manipulation of abstractions.

There was a more recent twins study, unless that was the one SciAm talked about, that showed genetics was responsible for about 90% of a mature adult's intelligence. Nurture affects were most prominent in the very young, and the nurture effect lessened and lessened as the subject grew older. I could dig it out sometime if it can't be found, but I'm heading for vacation soon and I have packing.

We don't know that IQ is very variable, in fact the strong genetic link indicates that it is not. There is no growing into IQ as populations adapt to the 20th century. The Flynn effect is mostly a myth, a results from tests being less heavy on the G factor. It's not that the tests were made easier, it is that some of the questions do not as heavily measure IQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_% ... metrics%29 <--- this explains a lot about intelligence testing.

[Tyrannical]

Nutrition, epi-genetics, day of the testing, wording of test ( Blink ), cultural background......etc etc and there is no one set metrics that works across all situations.

Bigots will however always try - more's the shame.

Can you really be that ignorant? I find it difficult to believe that you are unaware of such basic counter-examples of your claims.

Nutrition? Sure severe malnutrition can effect brain development, but generally the most obese ethnic group in developed nations are Blacks.
Wording of test? What words? That's why tests like Raven's Progressive Matrices are used.
Day of test? Embarrassing grasping at straws, and you should be ashamed. Obviously an individual and not a group factor.
Cultural background? Asians and Jews do just fine on WASP centric tests.
Epigenetics? Ethnic groups test similarly regardless to what country they live in, or how they are raised.

Every nurture excuse has been refuted one after another. And you think the theists are in denial

Network via cell tower or satellite will obviate the need for wired lines in many developing nations. The guy that invented Hotmail now has something going with SMS in India that will reach billions.

First worlders are fat lazy and spoiled and the billions that want want we have are clamouring. China's century coming up and the resource nations that feed her, Australia, Canada and much of Africa.

Must be nice to have the fat lazy first worlders out of the generosity of their hearts grant such wonders of technology. In the old days, they'd call us gods for our generosity. No, seriously they would according to all the old myths.

[Tyrannical]

Since hominids with around a third of our brain size had stone tools, fire, and were hunter gathers over 2M years ago I'd say that more "advanced" technology does require more intelligence. Otherwise we'd still have tiny brains. Those humans that were intelligent enough to invent farming, metallurgy, astronomy, stone working had a competitive group and individual advantage.

Tyrannical, you're muddying the waters here. Anatomically modern humans were hunter-gatherers for the majority of the time they've existed as a distinct species. You're also confusing the ability to invent "farming, metallurgy, astronomy" etc. with it being invented in practice. Some of those skills were just completely unnecessary to hunter-gatherers. And to take one example, Australian Aborigines did invent farming independently, they just chose to only use it to ensure they had regular supplies of Pituri.... they simply didn't require it for food. In many ways agriculture actually puts its practitioners at a competitive disadvantage, but it's almost always a one way street.

And again, I don't see a progression in complexity from hunter-gatherer skills to agrarian skills to civilised skills. Computer programming requires no more intelligence than the kind of flintknapping we see from the neolithic. I've done both and they're equally complex.

You can't judge intelligence by skeletal remains except by estimates. Phrenology anyone? It is judged by the artifacts they leave behind. Evidence of intelligence is proof of intelligence, so to speak.

Being able to be learn a previously developed skill is far different than what is needed to invent it.

As for Africans and hunter-gathers, it's all about statistics and averages,and how ability follows a bell curve. Some are capable, but on average far fewer are able to attain a level of ability than certain other groups. It's one of the reasons school dropout is so high, the work is just too hard.

That doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. Good luck with your fantasies.

Just look at the ethnic mix of brilliant scientists. Still laughing?

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

You cannot dismiss the Flynn Effect with a wave of the hand. It is very real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

In the United States, the average IQ over 100 years has risen from 80 to 100. I think you will find that African Americans average within that range in today's world. This would imply that a modern average African American has a higher IQ than the average white American 100 years ago. So much for genetics.

That is not to say that anyone has got smarter. We have just got better at dealing with IQ tests.

[mistermack]

Tyrannical

You cannot dismiss the Flynn Effect with a wave of the hand. It is very real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

In the United States, the average IQ over 100 years has risen from 80 to 100. I think you will find that African Americans average within that range in today's world. This would imply that a modern average African American has a higher IQ than the average white American 100 years ago. So much for genetics.

That is not to say that anyone has got smarter. We have just got better at dealing with IQ tests.

That's very well put. And perfectly true. But Tyrannical doesn't do evidence.

I pointed out earlier the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans, IN HIS OWN LINKED ARTICLE, were claimed to have average IQs of 70, and African Americans an average 85.
Again, so much for genetics.

Tyrannical has no answer to facts that his own pet sites throw up.
Just like fundie Christians, he quotes what he likes, and ignores what's inconvenient.

[Tyrannical]

I pointed out earlier the fact that Sub-Saharan Africans, IN HIS OWN LINKED ARTICLE, were claimed to have average IQs of 70, and African Americans an average 85.
Again, so much for genetics.

That's because African-Americans are on average about 20% admixed White, some significantly more. Non-admixed African-Americans score close to their African cousins. I could even find the study saying so, not that you'd read it.

[Tyrannical]

Tyrannical

You cannot dismiss the Flynn Effect with a wave of the hand. It is very real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

In the United States, the average IQ over 100 years has risen from 80 to 100. I think you will find that African Americans average within that range in today's world. This would imply that a modern average African American has a higher IQ than the average white American 100 years ago. So much for genetics.

That is not to say that anyone has got smarter. We have just got better at dealing with IQ tests.

You hit the key point with the Flynn effect at the end, are the tests testing the "g-factor" ?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9609001561 (just an excerpt, but you could probably find the full text)

The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black–White IQ gap

While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity.

Here's a nice neutral article on Spearman's hypothesis that tackles the subject.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Spearman%27s_hypothesis