We know that there is a considerable difference for avg IQ between whites, Asians and other races
but if we could get some statistics about avg IQ 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 years ago, would we see the same difference on avg? does peoples and races IQs increase or decrease over some period of time (e.g. 500 or 1000 years)? could it be related to political and environmental circumstances beside genetics?
Other urls found in this thread:
pumpkinperson.com
pumpkinperson.com
pumpkinperson.com
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
twitter.com
Incas would have had an IQ of 100 average meanwhile eurangutans a score of 60 or less in 1532.
>IQ
Better nutrition and education = Better IQ
It's not rocket science
your comment makes racism irrelevant, doesn't it?
>mongolia hunger
>china hunger
>nk hunger
>all their IQ are higher than American
>China
>Mongolia
>North Korea (assuming they're not bullshitting)
All those countries have a higher average IQ than the US
Never mind centuries, IQ varies wildly for each cohort, even if there's a general trend. A few generations ago most Europeans still had modern African-tier brain sizes and presumably IQs, brain sizes completely skyrocketed relatively recently.
See that spike? You're on it and it's barely even slowing down in the recent past:
pumpkinperson.com
pumpkinperson.com
pumpkinperson.com
What we get from these is that IQ has been rising by 0.5-1.3 SD every century by increases in brain size in Western countries. Similar trends are at work in all industrialized countries.
The other big factor in the rise of IQ is the democratization of schooling, any places where literacy and education became basic necessities to function instead of luxuries for the urban elites experienced rises in IQ. Urbanization itself is yet a third factor.
Ireland famously went from having some of the the lowest average IQs in Europe (Balkan-tier) to rivaling British IQ at the very top.
Short answer: yes.
Epigenetics are fundamental, and the common notion of hereditariety you will find on the internet is extremely outdated.
To be concise: genetics take a part in how smart will you be, but this process is not understood, and by looking at distributions of IQ of members of the same group spread geographicslly and in time, you will quickly realize that this matter if ar more complex than what racial realists want to lead you to believe.
Had you been born 2000 years ago, you would have seen Germans as retarded brute with no good intellectual quality whatsoever. A great stretch from the artistic and intellectual excellence they have achieved 1800 years later (and 1800 years are nothing when it comes to evolution)
A good summary from one of the posts:
>In other words, nutrition explains about a third of the Flynn effect, which is 30 points per century. In other words, a third of the Flynn effect is a gain in real intelligence: biological intelligence. Another third of the Flynn effect can be explained by the rise in schooling, and the final third of the Flynn effect can be explained by people being raised in more educated affluent homes (similar to the well documented 10 point adoption effect)
Wait... Were 8500bC Europeans smarter than us?
Genetics (50%)
Schooling (20%)
Food (20%)
The genetics factor is magnified immensely by rise rise of geniuses. Guys like Ramanujan had very little to no schooling/food resources when he was self-teaching mathematics.
I wonder what could happen with Ramanujan-tier youngsters left behind in some population in Norway. How would they develop themselves?
Being pre-agricultural people, it's likely they had a different form of intelligence that's unmeasurable by IQ tests. There are also other factors like low-light vision requiring more brain mass and that matters a lot to hunters (Inuits have famously big brains for this reason, though they're also very resourceful)
Of course. The nutritional factor is also magnified by the severity of the swing (you get a sharp drop in IQ growing up during a famine in some tropical shithole.) Pumpkin was talking about why IQ increased "naturally" for the general population over time.
Brain size =/= Intelligence
I bet the first reduction happened because of a decrease in muscle mass. The less body mass the brain has to control, the less need for brain cells to control them.
What matters is the ratio of brain to body mass. "Bird brain" crows are smarter than alligators.
Doesn't have to, with some mental gymnastics you can argue that white people are smarter because they can consume lactose without shitting their pants.
That's not how it works at all.
Biological factors set the upper limit and how easy it is to reach it, while environmental factors decide where you end up at.
Ramanujan was born in poverty. He was born a genius. His environmental factors didn't allow him any aid. It was only sheer luck that brought him to a british consulate and they flew him over to Britain to learn MORE. Before he even interacted with the British helper, he was already a genius in his own right, all self-taught.
But that is how it works. Genetics plays the largest part in intelligence. Geniuses like Ramanujan exemplifies this. Meanwhile for normal folks, its all gradual and the genetics factor is more marginalized due to people being mostly average.
with some mental gymnastics I concluded that you are a retard
Oh how the tables have turned my friend
How do you explain this then?
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
Race contributes about 1/3 of the IQ difference between whites and blacks in the US. The rest is attributable to socioeconomic factors, family factors (blacks have more children per family and more single parents), whatever the term is for when you tell teachers that certain entirely average students are particularly good/bad and those kids magically start performing better/worse in class, etc,
They survived the ice age, so they would have to be smarter overall, IQ wise. The problem is smarter overall doesn't mean more specialized knowledge or skills.
>Better nutrition and education = Better IQ
Better IQ > Better nutrition and education > Better IQ > Better nutrition and education > Better IQ > Better nutrition and education > Better IQ...
Good thing you needed some mental gymnastics for it or it may have been a proper insult. I don't need any to conclude you're a moron.
Finno-Korean Hyper War
>unironically believing IQ is a valid measurement of accomplishment
>the racial gap sharply decreases until the $60-80k range when it starts mostly stagnating
>there is a 183 SAT score gap between the highest and lowest income blacks versus a 152 gap for the highest and lowest whites, this is higher than the racial gap between any two racial populations at a given income level
>at the three lowest income levels, the gap between $60-80k and those under 20k is 91 points for blacks and 39 points for whites
Not only this should make you wonder, but this also seems to imply that poor blacks benefit the most from even modest socioeconomic advances and better education unlike the typical view that negro improvement is a waste of resources.
It must also be pointed out that African-Americans are special cases: in most other countries, high income blacks generally end up doing better than lower income whites at some point. Your niggers and even your black elites are just particularly underperforming compared to African and Caribbean migrants, possibly having to do with the history of blacks in the US.
Only creationists can 'logically' dispute a genetic basis for IQ
After all, if genetics play no role in human intelligence, how did it evolve in the first place?
>people evolved to pass IQ tests
Tell me more
How is it not? It correlates extremely strongly with both personal success and national success.
Genetic studies show that europeans living 2000 years ago had fewer of the genes that we have identified which boost intelligence than modern europeans. However it would seem that europeans in the victorian era were a bit smarter than modern day europeans.
it's correlated, but extremely high IQ usually comes with poor social skills, so they can do little outside academic and scientific careers
Where the hell did you find that statistic? Intelligence is 80% heritable.
>moving the goalposts
This is due to regression to the mean. Children of smart (and therefore rich) black parents regress to a lower mean than children of white parents.
I don't think you understand basic maths.
>implying anything else matters
>implying it's poor social skills and not just brainlets being unable to keep up
Then enlighten me, oh great redditor.
If you define success in academia or STEM then yes IQ is usually everything
but with business and politics, then usually NO, average or above average people are usually much more successful when it comes to business and politics
I'm lactose intolerant, am I now not white?
Lol you think business leaders have an average IQ? Lmao.
Thats not what regression to the mean means.
yes I do, doesn't mean that you have to be an average to go in business or politics, but if you are a high IQ and you are a STEM graduate you have to throw much of the logic behind you to deal with people and unknown risks
What does it mean then, oh great redditor?
You've quite obviously never left your mom's basement. All managers in big companies have IQs > 130
>All managers in big companies have IQs > 130
that's a claim not a fact
Google "IQ by profession", it's a fact
How many times does it occur though? I've noticed a lot of people think it just keeps happening but something like that would literally halt evolution.
It always occurs, but the new mean is higher than the old mean. So that, if all blacks with an IQ under 130 were killed, the resulting offspring of the survivors would regress to a mean of around 100, but then their new "genetic mean" would be 100
>google it
>see this
Apparently we shouldn't expect anyone except MDs and college professors to even have 130 IQ or more, and even for MDs it's a rather small portion of them who reach that level, it's not a fucking prerequisite.
RoTM is like a sharp shooter hit a Bullseye (BE). That's an extreme measurement so we take more shots of him and although he shoots very well they aren't BE. Even though his shots regress to the mean they DON'T become the mean. That means that his "data" is becoming more stable so that it's still very high but he isn't a BE machine. He can get BE's but his shots do vary although very well placed.
>Even though his shots regress towards the mean they DON'T become the mean, the mean is still the mean.
>Incas would have had an IQ of 100 average
ORLY? Who tested them? Nobody, right? And wWhy does this fact have ass allover it?
It's simple. Their higher development rate and asian autistic way of discipline put them there.
Regression to the mean would not occur due to an arbitary term such as race
Why is it none of you idiots know what regression to the mean is, yet expect people to believe everything you say?
Source?
(And no, Ryan Faulk, VDARE, Steve Sailer, TRS, Amren, etc. are NOT objective sources.)
>Google "IQ by profession"
>it's a fact