Is there any proof that modern humans are more intelligent than our prehistoric ancestors were?

Is there any proof that modern humans are more intelligent than our prehistoric ancestors were?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/c7puPXZVsFQ
youtube.com/watch?v=Th6EOlLK0DA
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

our prehistoric ancestors didnt do shit

No. Modern technology has made people weak and dumb. The ancients would look at us in shame.

Humans from 2000 years ago probably were smarter than us but the lack of electronics made them look like morons. Humans back in the neolithic era would need to be good thinker to survive in Europe, where as the original humans were most likely dumber than black people today so yes we are more intelligent than our ancient ancestors once you go to the mesolithic era.

The Finno-korean hyperwar disproves it.

except survive, bet you wouldn't last 5 minutes in prehistoric times lol

This

The human body and brain hasn't changed much at all in like 100k years. You could take a baby from about 100k years ago and raise it with today's tech & education and you'll end up with someone indistinguishable from everyone else. Vice versa if you took a baby back in time from here.

That's overly simplistic.

A major factor in the growth of "facts and mechanics and social calculation" intelligence has been war and raids.

With the rise of civilization, you had larger bands of men performing more elaborate raids and, with victory, getting more women and larger amounts of resources.

The past 10,000 years has accelerated human evolution for the characteristics that belong to conquerors who had a disproportionate effect on the gene pool.

In a sense, we are smarter than our ancestors. But our environment has become more complex and more simple at the same time. Complex in the amount of people and roles. Simple in that action and power is increasingly manipulated with more and more streamlined interfaces.

EX: Toddlers with tablets display more repetitive and "stereotyped" motor skills with their hands because they're not having as much practice manipulating complex 3-D objects with their hands.

this, our peak cognitive ability would have been around 5-20 thousand years ago. Our ancestors would have to know the ins and outs of the regions, have a wide variety of skills and very little specialisation. All for survival.

Yes, ours brains improved as our societies got more complex and our language developed more (language was probably the main driver for brain development to begin with, along with precision motor skills).

>100k
No user once that kid hits adolescence it would be a dangerous violent criminal unfit for human civilization.

>dangerous violent criminal
What make you think that?

Yeah, they didn't have planes and computers, they had fucking sharp rocks

Why the shit would you think that prehistoric humans are mentally civilized?

Caw Caw! Kill the mudmen monkeys! Caw Caw!

Brainlet detected

There are a few races (I'll let your imagine run wild as to which ones) that retain much of the basal morphology of ancient humans, plausibly including mental characteristics, but the subject is taboo.

Why do you think hunter gatherers are genetically destined to be violent criminals?

Europeans don't like to discuss the Neanderthal DNA.

>Why do you think hunter gatherers are genetically destined to be violent criminals?
Because they are uncivilized humans retard.

Lol

It isn't a taboo and the differences are too small to even consider them as separated races. See the differences between dog breeds and the differences between human races (I'm guessing you won't, but it's good for people to read about it).

Not to be a complete asshat but the differences between dog breeds include a shitton of various mental and physical characteristics that would imply the differences themselves in humans are as significant as they actually are.

A mesolithic white male would beat the crap out of a modern white the moment he sees them because of the masculine dominance instinct. A mesolithic white male wouldnt give a shit about money or getting a job they are programmed to be anarchistic hunter gatherers meaning they will hunt(rape women) and gather(steal anything they see) and there is nothing you can do to stop them either. Also they are MUCH STRONGER THAN YOU and their bones are also denser with a higher degree of pain tolerence as well so good luck fighting one faggot.

this is great I'm believing this now. way better than religion

youtu.be/c7puPXZVsFQ

Darwinists might say that there has been a longer period for the dumb to die off since pre-historic times.

This video proves nothing

>because of the masculine dominance instinct

youtube.com/watch?v=Th6EOlLK0DA

why do you racefags ruin every thread

>this, our peak cognitive ability would have been around 5-20 thousand years ago. Our ancestors would have to know the ins and outs of the regions, have a wide variety of skills and very little specialisation. All for survival.
Seems to me that those phenotypes would still exist but what is changing is the population distribution of them.

The rapid evolution of the brilliance of man is one of the signs of God's existence.

It's amazing that so few scientists are keen on this idea.

Couple that with a body that is harmoniously fine-tuned for the mind of man, the evidence is overwhelming. Human beings have bodies that are well suited for technology and their faces are more suitable for expressing higher emotions.

When you consider that the arising of these complex factors are supposedly driven by random mutation, the evidence is overwhelming.

Certain dog breeds are banned in Europe do to their aggressive tendencies. Yet we allow the more aggressive feral human breeds to roam free and vote.

Point out that certain human breeds have a much lower intelligence and much lower count of cortical neurons and it can ruin your career just as it happened to Nobel Prize winner James Watson.

Whether you want to admit or not, bith genetically and behaviouraly the differences between dog breeds are a lot more apparent than the differences between human races.

>certain human breeds have a much lower intelligence and much lower count of cortical neurons and
[citation needed]
All we know is that ON AVERAGE certain races outperform others intelligence-wise because the genes positively correlated with intelligence are more common among the individuals of such races. Such genes are not found in every individual of the superior races and can also be found in individuals outside of those races, and not as rarely as you might think.
Agressiveness in certain races can easily be changed trough education. I don't have to remind you that a race that was once regarded as savage and primitive today comprises one of the most peaceful and prosperous set of nations in the world. Also, men are a lot more prone to aggression than women. The vast majority of criminals are men. I assume you are a male. If so, are you a criminal? Should you be treated as one because most criminals are also part of the same group as you?

>[citation needed]
It's in the fucking pic I posted before.

Here you go:
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
"30 Years of Studies on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" J.P. Rushton and Arthur Jensen (2005)

>All we know is that ON AVERAGE certain races outperform others intelligence-wise because the genes positively correlated with intelligence are more common among the individuals of such races.
Yes so common so as to constitute a difference of more than two standard deviations between Europeans and Native Africans and more than one standard deviation between European Americans and African Americans.

>Agressiveness in certain races can easily be changed trough education.
Education can only take you so far.
IQ differences among races persist even when correcting for education, culture, upbringing, and social class. Clearly there is a genetic component to it that remains unchangeable.

I won't bother to reply to your irrational appeal to emotion at the end of your post. Fact is, Western IQs are declining due to the importation and higher rates of reproduction of genetically inferior stock.

Actually, a lot of proof that they were smarter. People don't know anything nor can they figure out anything; they wait for others to do it for them, or simply believe that "someone" is getting it done.

Tribes were smaller; the environment was harsher. There were a larger percentage of smart people 10000 years ago than today.

neanderthal clothing was wrapping or draping a hide on their bodies.

homo sapien clothing was cut and stitched to conform to the body.

See

Can we please cool it with the race discussion? Even if there are differences in IQ or whatever, my people have bent over backwards trying to instill humanism in the west and give the disadvantaged a chance to avenge the west's transgressions.

>Human beings have bodies that are well suited for technology and their faces are more suitable for expressing higher emotions.

The rapid evolution is due to agriculture subsidizing larger and more elaborate tribal raids with larger and more elaborate booty.

War is thy father.

And the face is due to weighing paedomorphic faces higher on evaluation. We have the least difference between neotenous facial features and grown adults.

Pedophilia is what happens when that weighing of neotenous facial features is exaggerated in evaluatory networks.

>We have the least difference between neotenous facial features and grown adults amongst primates*

Only two races?
Get back to me when you at least have black-white mixed race as a category, and I might believe you're doing actual science.

>west's transgressions.
What about Africa's transgressions? And Arab transgressions? And Asian transgressions?
Enough with the guilt ride the West owes these people nothing.

There are mixed races mentioned in the PDF I linked to. They still score lower than whites. Even the adopted ones.

Fuck off.

>IQ differences among races persist even when correcting for education, culture, upbringing, and social class. Clearly there is a genetic component to it that remains unchangeable.
I was talking about aggressiveness, not IQ. I have already explained that IQ differences happen due to a higher concentration of genes positively correlated with intelligence. That higher concentration, however, doesn't mean that every white/jew/asian individual is smarter than every black individual.

>I won't bother to reply to your irrational appeal to emotion at the end of your post. Fact is, Western IQs are declining due to the importation and higher rates of reproduction of genetically inferior stock.
You won't bother to reply to it because you can't. You haven't said how the innate aggressiveness argument can be used against black people but not against men.

>Even the adopted ones.
I'm a black male adopted by a white family and I'm smarter than nearly everyone I'm met.

>inb4 you are an exception
I've seen enough "exceptions" to know that the rule doesn't work that way.

I've met*

Lol say's he smart but misspells a word. Smdh u makin a fool of yo self, my brother.

>typo
>sign of low intelligence

If they were so smart, why didn't they invent the internet :^)))

cave paintings were ancient shitposting

My buddy, Oonka-Toonka Dindunuffingson, disagrees.

We have lower testosterone levels so we're smarter. Testosterone harms the brain at high levels abd our ancestors were through the roof. The only people who argue testosteron is good for the brain are MRAs on r/TRP

The human brain was larger during a pre-historic time. Since there seems to be a correlation between the brain/body mass ratio and intelligence, it can be said that our ancestors were smarter than us at a certain point.
Knowledge =/= Intelligence btw

Maybe, but there is also evidence for greater musculature, which results in more brain mass dedicated to controlling muscle contractions.

Is there anything to suggest brain complexity was greater in the past?

While it it seems undeniable that genetic potential for intelligence has become relatively variable, this does not mean that it is less than it was in the past except in a proportional sense.

I would argue that the availability of mathematical and linguistic training and the resultant ability to share and discuss ideas has benefits for our minds which might outweigh this genetic trend towards stupidity.

>[citation needed]
Not him but citations are always good. So how do you hold up?
>All we know
Thus begins all weak arguments.

>is that ON AVERAGE certain races outperform others intelligence-wise because the genes positively correlated with intelligence are more common among the individuals of such races.
Sadly there are no references in sight.

>Such genes are not found in every individual of the superior races and can also be found in individuals outside of those races, and not as rarely as you might think.
Again references are critically lacking.

>Can we please cool it with the race discussion?
We? Just who are you?

> Even if there are differences in IQ
I smell bard arguments coming up.

>or whatever,
I smell sloppy arguments coming up.

>my people
Who?

>have bent over backwards trying to instill humanism in the west
How?

>and give the disadvantaged a chance to avenge the west's transgressions.
Do you believe in inherited guilt?