Hi
So I've just listened to this : http://mises.org/media/4691
Hoppe says that one of the explanation for the industrial revolution is that Europeans were simply more intelligent. According to him, there's a long natural selection that tooks place until the Welfare state grown bigger and bigger : people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children.
So centuries after centuries, this took place, but only in northern countries. Why ? Because living conditions are "harsher" in these places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries, where "every days look the same".
And now I wonder, how can he says that living was harsher in northern countries than in... Africa for exemple ? We've all watched reports on TV where we see people in villages in Africa eating dirt, dying from deseases, having no water, having to walk 6 hours each day to seek waters or to go to the nearest school... so how was it harder than peasants in England ?
EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that's why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D
Who says they measure intelligence? All we know is that they measure how good people are at IQ tests. Calling that a measure of intelligence is merely defining intelligence as being good at IQ tests.
So we have no way of knowing if someone is intellegent or not? Of course we do. We cannot test someones ability to learn? Of course we can. Are all humans as smart as all others? Of course not.
If your objection is just IQ tests. I understand. They are not perfect. But to dismiss them completely is a mistake. they do measure something more than just how good you are at taking tests. IQ tests are just one piece of information that to be put into context with other information.
Thats where I'm at, that the answer lies in the study of ideas.
And the source of ideas are human intellegence. The two cannot be separated.
Those previous time were in likelyhood times of capital accumulation and technological advancement, ultimately leading to the industrial revolution.
Human populations in africa have had more time to accumulate capital than any other group of humans, yet they have accumulated less than any other group. While economic analysis might provide some insight, it will ultimately regress back to why some groups changed thier behaviour and did the right things, while other did things the way they have always been done and progressed little.
Another interesting thought on capital accumulation. It is 100% neccessity in cold climates. If everything you need to survive the winter is not collected during the spring, summer, and fall you will die. If you dont store enough food, death. If you dont gather enough wood, death. If you dont repair your shelter, death.
In warm climates food is available year round. No need to stock pile (accumulate consumable goods). Fire is only used for cooking and you can gather all the wood you need year round. No need to store it up. Really all raw materials for anything you do during the winter have to be gathered during the summer.
Absolutely there are. Ill even give you the technology to build a fire to keep yourself warm during the winter. Now how do you eat during that long cold winter?
I catch fish and have loads of nuts stored from the fall?
Some sort of sources would go further than simply bolding.
Read The Bell Curve.
Political Atheists Blog
Is this different behavior than if food was available year round? Yes. So you would have to modify you behavior in order to survive. What if you you didnt plan correctly or did not ration properly? You would die. Those who were able to plan for the future were the ones who survived year after year.
What if you had access to clothing that could keep you warm during the winter. Now you could leave your cave and augment your diet with meat. If you had some unforeseen problem (spoilage of food) you could now survive by hunting. But without the proper clothing you are confined to the cave and have little room for error.
Technology is the only reason people were able to leave africa. If we had to rely on physical adaptaions alone humans would still be confined to africa. Some other type of humaniod like neanderthals would have populated the colder climates. They were much better physically adapted for cold climates. But thier physical adaptations were not as big advantage to our mental adaptations.
Another thought on the storage of fish and nuts. This creates pressures of its own that would allow the clever to be more surviveable. Food rots. In ice age Europe and Asia winter would last 6 - 8 months. Those who figured out ways to preserve thier food the longest now have an edge in survival. This is not an issue in warm climates where food is havested year round. So no need to be as clever.
If there is no need for adaptation it does not occur.
Your being disingenuous, How about in the Americas? Where they Sparse in population? I doubt it. The Incas were cultivating crops on top of mountains.
First of all, it's "you're" not "your" and I'm not being disingenuous. You're being a dick.
Secondly, if you want to compare mountaintop farms with cities such as Venice or Constantinople, be my guest.
One cannot become good at taking IQ tests unless one takes many IQ tests over the course of one's lifetime. Obviously, the vast majority of people who take IQ tests and are included in studies are only one-timers or people who take two to three tests over the course of a lifetime. That's not enough to become "trained" on IQ tests.
Secondly, IQ tests are designed to measure one's abstract reasoning ability as well as one's ability to acquire new knowledge.
Thirdly, if IQ tests could be trained, then there wouldn't be significant crossover from one IQ test to the next. However, this is exactly what studies have shown.
Lastly, if IQ tests could be trained, there wouldn't be any significant heritability. However, studies have shown that IQ is heritable at a rate of 0.4 to 0.8. From what I've read, most studies (or perhaps the most believable ones) show a heritability between 0.4 and 0.6. Obviously, this leaves a significant role for biological and environmental factors in shaping one's intelligence, but it shows that genes are just as important, if not more so.
If you want more information on IQ and heritability but are unwilling to cough up money for books, I suggest you start here. Some key excerpts:
IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs. [...] Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) [...] The following professors-all experts in intelligence and allied fields-have signed this statement: Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un. Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota Hans Eysenck, University of London Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University Linda S. Gottfiedson, University of Delaware Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University Richard J. Haier, University of California at Irvine Garrett Hardin, University of California at Santa Barbara Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign John E. Hunter, Michigan State University Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin David Lubinski, Iowa State University David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia Robert Perlo& University of Pittsburgh Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University David C. Rowe, University of Arizona J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley Sandra Starr, University of Virginia Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University James C. Sharf, George Washington University Herman Spitz, former director of research E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J. Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un. Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin
IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.
A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.
[...]
Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.)
The following professors-all experts in intelligence and allied fields-have signed this statement: Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un. Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota Hans Eysenck, University of London Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University Linda S. Gottfiedson, University of Delaware Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University Richard J. Haier, University of California at Irvine Garrett Hardin, University of California at Santa Barbara Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign John E. Hunter, Michigan State University Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin David Lubinski, Iowa State University David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia Robert Perlo& University of Pittsburgh Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University David C. Rowe, University of Arizona J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley Sandra Starr, University of Virginia Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University James C. Sharf, George Washington University Herman Spitz, former director of research E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J. Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un. Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin
Technology is the only reason people were able to leave africa. If we had to rely on physical adaptaions alone humans would still be confined to africa.
That isn't the issue. Of course some level of inteligence and techology were needed. But your argument is that the sort of inteligence was needed that was beyond Africans. I very much doubt that. I doubt that you would be more likely to survive on a deserted temperate island than an African dude. A random African is as capable of figuring out to store food as you are.
It doesn't rott when it's freezing. Deer digg up grass from bellow the snow, humans do the same for cabbages. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to preserve food in this way.
I doubt that you would be more likely to survive on a deserted temperate island than an African dude.
Untill we hammer out this detail any other discussion will be fruitless. Because if it is not recognized that cold climates require different behavior than warm climates the of course the theory makes no sense.
I agree we both would die. Because why? Colder climate are more harsh. That is the point Our physical adaptations do not allow us to survive there. The first time the temprature drops below 50 -40 degrees you will die without shelter or proper clothing. The temprature never drops that low on the equator. There are things that will kill you in the tropics, but none are as absolute as temprature. And those can be avoided without technology. Can we agree that temprature is an absolute killer and that the only thing that can overcome that killer is technology?
People who live on the continent of Africa are obviously intellectually capable of making clothing suitable for colder climates.
There is a much better explanation why Africans were not able to move north. It has nothing to do with intelligence or technology, nothing to do with them being to incapable of building a shelter, store food, skin animals or sew clothing. It has to do with them lacking a physical adaptation. Their skin is made to protect from the sun which makes them 8 times slower to produce vitamin D. This leaves them vitamin D defficient and sickly in northern lattitudes where you must walk around clothed exposing less skin to the sun and where the sun is too low on the horizon for you to produce any vitamin D for 6 months of the year.
This isn't a big deal today because of our rich diet, but in prehistoric times when your life would hung on the balance at all times a problem like this was the difference between life and death.
70 thousand years ago they were. I am not talking about intellectual capacity today.
Maybe that is where the confusion is. I am trying to make two points in all of my above posts.
1st I am trying to establish that Yes, cold climates are more harsh than warm climates. If that cannot be agreed on then the theory doesnt make sense.
2nd I am trying to show how if colder climates are indeed more harsh then the adaptaions that we made to survive there were not physical. They were mental.
The island scenario is only to demonstrate that our physical adaptaions are insufficent to survive outside of the tropics. While our physical adaptations are sufficient when living in the tropics. Will anyone disagree with this point?
There is a much better explanation why Africans were not able to move north. It has nothing to do with intelligence or technology, nothing to do with them being to incapable of building a shelter, store food, skin animals or sew clothing. It has to do with them lacking a physical adaptation. Their skin is made to protect from the sun which makes them 8 times slower to produce vitamin D. This leaves them vitamin D defficient and sickly in northern lattitudes where you must walk around clothed exposing less skin to the sun and where the sun is too low on the horizon for you to produce any vitamin D for 6 months of the year. This isn't a big deal today because of our rich diet, but in prehistoric times when your life would hung on the balance at all times a problem like this was the difference between life and death.
You have cause and effect backwards here. You say they couldnt move north because of dark skin. But they did move north. So they would have had to develop pale skin first. It dosent work that way. They moved out of africa first then developed the pale skin to better suit the environment they were in.
So if it wasent technology and wasent skin color, why?
Also, I think that we may be differing on a few assumptions that wont allow us to find common ground.
First I am making the assumption that all humans 50, 75, 100 thousand years ago were not as intellegent as we are today. And technology that we find childishly simple today was complex and beyond the understanding of a significant portion of the population then.
Next, I am assuming that what we view as simple technology today was rocket science 100 thousand years ago. Yes clothing is a simple idea today but at one time it was revolutionary. Same with shelter, hunting and gathering techniques, etc.
If we have these different starting points then of course we wont come to the same conclustion or even understand what the others point is.
jazholl5: People come up with all kinds of theories, but that's all it is - a person's theory. In reality, people's intelligence has nothing to do with where they live. It's an issue on another level entirely (the mind) and has nothing to do with the conditions of the body. There were people (very few) who survived the concentration camps with peace and compassion for their opressors and then there were those who still have not forgiven or forgotten every single hurt and slight. They shared the identical physical conditions... It just so happens that everything happens in waves throughout history. Nations rise and fall (southern nations and northern nations, by the way), nothing stays constant. Superpowers rise and then disintegrate. Just look through the history of civilization. And nobody has a good explanation for it.
People come up with all kinds of theories, but that's all it is - a person's theory. In reality, people's intelligence has nothing to do with where they live. It's an issue on another level entirely (the mind) and has nothing to do with the conditions of the body. There were people (very few) who survived the concentration camps with peace and compassion for their opressors and then there were those who still have not forgiven or forgotten every single hurt and slight. They shared the identical physical conditions...
It just so happens that everything happens in waves throughout history. Nations rise and fall (southern nations and northern nations, by the way), nothing stays constant. Superpowers rise and then disintegrate. Just look through the history of civilization. And nobody has a good explanation for it.
On the contrary IQ is correlated with race and race is correlated with geographic location.
Living your entire life up to the point of taking the test is training on IQ tests. It is simply absurd to believe that everything that a person has for his entire life has no impact on the result of any test that he takes. A good intelligence test would show a lower score for people who seriously propose such a crazy notion.
What something is designed to do and what it does are two different things. But you are wrong about what it is designed to do. It is designed to extricate "intrinsic" ability from acquired ability. Which is a ludicrous idea as I said above. If a test was designed to do what you say, it would be a valid idea, but there's no proof that the IQ test measures anything other than how good people are at IQ tests (or you might say how good they are at the type of activity on the test).
Again, you don't have to do a test to train for it. You just have to do the type of activity that is in it.
Your being disingenuous, How about in the Americas? Where they Sparse in population? I doubt it. The Incas were cultivating crops on top of mountains. First of all, it's "you're" not "your" and I'm not being disingenuous. You're being a dick. Secondly, if you want to compare mountaintop farms with cities such as Venice or Constantinople, be my guest.