Race and IQ gap

I thought it was self-evident; that racism is useless as a metric, especially in modern times.

 

I was at my friends home today and house an his expertise on the subject of brain function and his knowledge is unassailable a Neurologist, I asked him straight out "is there link between brain size and IQ?"..his answer "No absolutely not, there is no relationship between volume and intelligence" and then he surprised me with the same example I've used here, "half our adult population are women and they have smaller brains but are still equal to men" ....

 

more historical deficiencies,arabs, portugal, belgium, italy germany, spain, france england and none made any appreciable progress in populating sub-sahara africa.....400yrs of direct contact with africa and there was no significant migration, not because anyone needed formalization that's ludicrous but because it was sub-saharan africa is environmental hostile to man and domestic European animals...

you'll need a degree in history or archeology to know as much as me....

grade school version of history...vandals and franks successfully moved into the roman empire long before it collapsed in the west...the germans never defeated rome, western roman empire fell to internal economics, external invasions were just a result of those internal failures...

 

They would i need IQ tests?
Take the hobbit as an example ( homo floresiensis) , with a brain no bigger than a chimp they made stone tools and used fire for cooking.
It is not the size but structure and connections . Neanderthal diet was 95% meat and they could maintain their enormous brain and Cro Magnons were a similar case , after we switched into farming our brains started to shrink .

 

roman generals were often political appointments tactical and strategic abilities were optional... if you served in a legion and Scipio africanus, marcus agrippa, pompey or ceasar was appointed as general it was good,if Quinctilius Varus, crassus, paulus and varo was your general your career was destined to be very short...but even with bad leadership roman armies were obviously successful in spite of their questionable generals, the basic legionary organization and discipline was vastly superior to opponents....

 

He 'surprised' you today? That's funny considering you've been repeating this anecdote for months.

The correlation emerges when controlling for sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/#ap1

 

which is precisely what my friend the neurologist told me today...

 

It's both.

 

No it is not both , sperm whales have massive brains and no spaceships , some dolphins have larger brains than humans yet they never jump over nets .
Maybe intelligence has something to do with body size / brain ratio , maybe not.

 

Within humans it's both.

 

really hilarious since he repeated my example of women...

and i wasn't conversing with you, you're so afflicted dunning kruger effect I know longer read your ignorant racist rants with some of the stupidest logic ever displayed on this forum...

- - - Updated - - -

structure is not the same as volume...most of the brain is devoted just to running the body, whales have big bodies and big brains....the connections within the brain are important...surface area crenelation is also important, large volume skull isn't required for crenelation ...

 

This is correct. Congratulations on a correct post.

 

I know the difference between structure and volume , what i posted is that homo floresiensis was smart enough to make tools and harness fire with a brain no bigger from a chimp .
Do you think that body size / brain ratio is important?

 

it doesn't seem to be, there are a number of animals ranked above and below us in the body size/brain ratio...a number of birds with tiny brains are very intelligent equal to or superior to many much larger brained mammals, obviously size just doesn't matter...

and Homo floresiensis may have been very intelligent they were hunter gatherers just as we were(and in some places still are) there are skulls but no preserved brains so the structure can't be examined...being island dwellers there is the possibility they were building water craft... Flores is on the eastern side of the Wallace line which suggests they may have built water craft to reach Flores, that would've required considerable long term planning and organizational ability, not something a chimp can do...

 

Yeah, they would, b/c you're making the assumption you know their IQ when you don't.

Get back to me when you deal w/ every study on brain volume and IQ showing positive correlation between the two.

 

Actually you can create models of brains using skulls as a cast and they have done it with the hobbit . Their frontal part of the brain was enormous ( as % of the whole brain) . Of course there is always the chance that those people were homo erectus and they were subjected to the common "island dwarfism" although a couple of documentaries / articles i have read about their physiology show that their bones are much more similar to australopithicians than any of the homo genus species. If this is the case then probably they reached Flores at an age when they could walk here rather than using a boat.
The hunting and gathering is an economy thing and has nothing to do intelligence , there are still people living this way , modern people like you and me .

If all believe in the positive correlation between intelligence and brain volume explain the hobbit .

 

The IQ test is faulty. Don't get me wrong, people who score high on it are smart, but people who exist in very different environments than the creators of the test are not scored properly.

The ability to do well in new environments and the ability to learn new habits and adapt are big indicators of intelligence. The ability to quickly make sense of new requirements for survival and overcome them so to speak.

A big vocabulary, spatial reasoning, and logic are way overrated.

 

brain casts are still very limited ....homo erectus is 1.8 million years old so the hobbit would be younger, the Wallace line is 50 million years old, so mammals haven't crossed that stretch of open water for a very long time, and long before any hominid was around...I question how common Island dwarfism actually is, there are a many more islands where dwarfism doesn't occur compared to islands where it does, why are there no dwarfs on Flores today? ...Polynesians are not small people why haven't they become dwarfs ...

disagree, hunting and gathering requires significant intelligence, these people doing this today have the same potential as you or I, they don't suddenly become stupid because of their lifestyle, until 12k years ago we were all hunter gatherers and no less intelligent than we are now, just because we can operate a smart phone that makes us no more intelligent than a H&G who has no use for a smart phone but knows how to find water in a desert...few of us would survive more than a few weeks or even days placed in their environment, they have accumulated a vast wealth of knowledge in order to survive, their knowledge is different but the intelligence is the same...

the technically ability and knowledge to build water craft would be considerable, to cross the Wallace line in sufficient numbers (10-50 individuals) would've taken deliberate long range planning, how could a homonid no more intelligent than a chimp have done this?.. I've read the archeologist conclusions that they couldn't be intelligent but they also speculate they descended from homo erectus, while homo erectus were not at our level they weren't exactly stupid either there mounting evidence of homo erectus habitation on remote islands, if Flores was a dwarf erectus why would they regress in intelligence?...how does a hominid only a meter tall with the supposedly with the intelligence of a chimp cross the Wallace line?

 

Polynesia , Micronesia and New Zealand were colonized later , Oceanic peoples were able to travel to Easter island and Madagascar they were not confined in their small lands. Also the first people reached Australia 60k years ago , the time period is too short for significant body mass changes.
The hobbit is younger, they extinct like 12k years ago if i remember this right.
I am not saying that there was no water at all but during the ice ages the level of water was very low and in many cases people only had to swim like in the migration from Africa to Yemen .
Dwarfism has been observed in many cases from small mammoths in USA to dwarf rhinos in Cyprus .

Hunting and gathering is what bears and other omnivorous animals do , bears are not stupid but they are not human level either.
I never said that we are more intelligent from people who lived 10k or 20k years ago , only a moron would say that .

The thing is that those hominids were much more intelligent than a chimp , chimps don't make weapons or cook with fire .
It is interesting to investigate how a mini version of the erectus retained the intelligence of the master copy , this seems to be the case.
If you have read basic stuff about the erectus you will know that their technology never progressed in those 1.8m years they have been around , for sure they were the most successful species of the genus Homo yet they missed a very important part of what makes us special.
Homo sapient copies as a child and then is encouraged by society to specialize and innovate , the erectus simply never innovated , i am not well versed in floresiensis technology but from the little i remember they show same pattern .

 

Yes, running around in the jungle with a stick and a loin cloth requires significant intelligence.

 

Garbage. Erectus crossed the Wallace line 850,000 years ago.

 

Does it really matter when local natives were able to beat the supposedly superior Romans, as recently as last millennium.

 

A pack of wild chimpanzees are also able to beat "supposedly superior" humans.

Let's give give chimps affirmative action!

 

Why resort to appeals to ignorance cloaked in false analogy. In any case, a thousand monkeys typing on a thousand typewriters may come up with better solutions than our federal Congress, potentially in less than a thousand years.

What does it say of racism, if speciesism may be worse.

 

Gratuitous nonsense. By your logic any organism that wins a physical conflict in any case is superior or "equal" across the board. And that's BS logic.