Great video as always. I especially like the part where you point out that the equality is better in hunter-gatherer societies than that of "modern civilization" :-)
tt, western europe did not breed livestock or sow crops better than asians ,arabs ,indians or africans ...we simply had an age of REASON and they did not .we didnt invent steel or guns or ship building .we embraced knowlege ITSELF ,we merely copied what worked ,then,over time , improved it .per the scientific method .we certainy did not invent conquest ,imperialism slavery or genocide
H.G ,. societys are not more moral ,just or equitable than pastoral societys ,they merely starve more often
Non-hunter-gatherer civilizations are superior due to the higher long term survival probability.
Also hunter-gatherers dont have anything else to share, so Im not sure how youd go about comparing them. The worst of the civilized is probably still off better by far than any hunter gatherer.
I just cant help but feel youre ignorıng the human tendency to shift the frame of reference.
You forget another important thing. Not only is the question why should they domesticate animals etc. BUT can they domesticate anything? is there a plant provinding enough energie like weat or rice. are there workable animas like cows or horses to plow the land. in most cases those things are not provided in for example africa(middle south) or some of the tropical reigions and thus those people never had the chance to create a high society
I think you hit on it with the word "need". For example, native Americans had so much land and natural resources available per capita that a simple lifestyle was all that was called for. There was never a need to industrialize, and therefore, it never happened. The was plenty of proof of high intelligence of the native Americans as a people and they were resourceful. I think that old proverb, "necessity is the mother of invention" is very true.
@kenotube It's funny you mention Native Americans because a lot of Natives didn't like 'destroying' the land thus not wanting to do much to it, not to forget, a lot were nomads. When you go to Mesoamerica however, you see people settling in one region(s). Allowing them to 'advance'.
Responding to self-imposed ignorance is a very useless thing to do.
I don't think you understood the book very well either tooltime. The author attempted to show that the advance of civilization was entirely environmental in nature. I think he did a good job of showing that every plant and animal that could be domesticated was, and that every material that could be made into tools were. Certain places on earth simply have no domesticatable plants or animals and no metal deposits.
what about the fac that western european countries which are slightly advanced. do not strap bmbs to thir children and send them out to die. but like in japan and china. where people dont starve and live homeless LIKE in america
I think there were and are many civilisations who have not become farmers, allthough it would advanced that society - simply because they live in regions where you just can't grow anything.
That's a major point in Diamond's book: The "advanced" civilisations just had the luck to originate from a very fertile region. And that has nothing to do with good genes and everything with beeing dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.
"Sex at Dawn", the excellent book that Dan Savage has been recommending, talks a lot about this very thing. Hunter gathering societies are in many ways better off socially than agricultural based societies, although I guess you could say it's all pretty relative.
The truth is population density controls speed of culture evolution. Some places like Africa there is too much deadly factors that held(and are still holding) population density down so critical mass of density(for certain "improvements") was never achieved. And even now old and stone hard cultural norms control those territories. There is also other problems like diseases that will lower average IQ in near of equator and black skin creates less vitamin D that lowers IQ and health also.
@SystemLordNemo And in Africa there is and was problems to create stable states because of terrain. SystemLordNemo: "black skin creates less vitamin D" in certain places remember! SystemLordNemo: "that lowers IQ and health also" and weaker heath lowers average IQ you get the point.
Civilisation is really just a way of coping with the higher population that agriculture allows. It's basically just a merging of tribes with the strongest chieftains taking the top jobs. The social and technological benefits that come along with it are nice, sure, but I doubt they were what the parents of civilisation had in mind when they started planting their fields.
So by this retard's logic, the people of the 16th-17th centuries are genetically inferior as they didn't have industrialisation and liberal governance theories?
@PostITnoteGUY yes, and you are the same species as a retarded person, you can breed with a retarded person too. Doesn't mean we would treat you & a retard completely the same without some consideration of differences in needs.
You started by asking if I was Eurasian, I answered the best I can, only for you to tell me we're all African, so to you, a person can't be more or less non-African, end of story.
Highly doubt that. Primitive agricultural societies had little record keeping, so any psychological insights have to be based on what evidence does exist. As far as I know, most evidence points toward much greater prevalence of psychoses in pre-industrial societies. In addition, murder rates were higher, disease was more common and more often fatal, infant and child mortality was astronomical, and the standard of living was below what Americans call poverty.
@PostITnoteGUY So according to you, my hypothetical African ancestors had to slip out of Africa undetected by history recorded in multiple locations, without the invention of ships, cars, airplanes, and being half African children, my ancestors were treated fairly and survived their time. Yeah, that's possible, how much are you willing to bet? (since when was this about me?)
@PostITnoteGUY ok, so next time you say "as far as I know" I'll make sure I ask a million questions. Even if you don't admit "as far as you know" I'll ask away anyway, just to make sure you're certain to my satisfaction.
@PostITnoteGUY so I'm not the only person who didn't read the book. Diamond states in the video, that New Guineans have had pigs for thousands of years (not sure how he knows, but i'll take his word for it). I dont know how long you need to wait before you can give up and say "they just can't do it, forget it".
Do you go to a special ed classroom to ask for college homework help? Why not? Everybody at some point didnt know college material, right?
@PostITnoteGUY by knowing the history of my parents and ancestors. but that's of course not good enough for you. and no, we know what people who are 50% African look like. (did you notice that people quickly said I was Asian without seeing my videos in color? Clearly they can identify Asian traits on me even when skin color isn't clear)
@PostITnoteGUY I wasn't the person who used the phrase genetic significant, so why are you asking me what I didn't say? And I know I am Eurasian, among other groups of classifications, but to be on the safe side I said "as far as I know" Are you certain of everything you say? Do you never say "as far as I know"?
@PostITnoteGUY if you are saying Eurasians are more diverse than Africans, I agree. But that wasn't the argument. YES, you CAN group Europeans and Asians separately, and it would be more meaningful. Eurasian was a geographical and civilized group used in Diamond's book, and the person above, says "civilization may make genes weaker", my point was, if he said "civilization may make genes stronger" (which is what people say I said) then people would have the opposite reaction (and you prove it)
@PostITnoteGUY ask the person who said "civilization, if anything makes genetics weaker". But no, Eurasians or "civilizations" are not entirely arbitrary, even if there's no perfect definition. You can replace the words with a more objective or understandable measure, and facts won't change.
Since you don't know what's genetically significant, I don't think your question is serious.
@PostITnoteGUY what's the genetically signigicant difference between a male and a female other than superficial physical traits?
Wait, why am I arguing this with you? This is far removed from the subject. What I said was, why is it people have no problem saying that Eurasians are genetically weaker, but God forbid the contrary to be mentioned. Do you agree?
@PostITnoteGUY "What's genetically significant about that particular group? I mean why not single out any arbitray group like Anglo Welsh Irish or South European North african?"
Aside from the fact Diamond choose to speak of them as such, nothing.
"What's genetically significant about you other than some superfical physical traits?"
I won't answer until you tell me what counts as "genetically significant", the minute I answer something you'll say "that's not good enough, try again"
Africans were the first to develop complex societies, and despite their isolation even the Native Americans were culturally ahead of the Britannic Celts, Germans and Slavic people before and during most of Roman times.
The Arabian people were the most culturally advanced throughout the most of the Middle Ages.
So, a drastic climate change comes around in Africa, and religion brings an end to the Arabic Golden age, and he's blaming genetics?
@F3YR3 are you saying basically, that Europeans are just lucky enough to have never suffered drastic climate change, as if they haven't been through dark ages and religious wars?
Two people are handcuffed, and each is given a small piece of wire to try and pick the lock. After they both struggle constantly for 10 hours straight, one of them happens to succeed, and just a few minutes later, turns to the other and says: "Aha! I've been free from my handcuffs for SEVERAL MINUTES! You suck! I'm superior to you!" (ignoring the 10 hours)
You could add to this analogy that the person with free hands now starts to work on other things, exponentially gaining more advantage.
@Flyborg does the word superior mean ANYTHING to you at all? If not, fine. But if it does, can you explain to mean WHEN it is ever appropriate? If you look at 10 hours +/- 10 minutes on a greater scale, isn't it life and death in certain context?
@spiritualbully [1/2] It could be life and death - but does it mean the person who took 600 minutes can brag that they're "superior" to the person who took 605 minutes? It would be like getting 95 on a test, while someone else got 94, and calling them stupid. In any case, it's WELL within the margin of error, so it's a bit presumptuous/arrogant to start speculating about "superiority".
@Flyborg when its life and death, I don't care what you call it. I'd rather live and be called inferior than argue with somebody over a word he doesn't like.
Margin of error. It would be factually accurate to say that the results are inferior, but not the person or group, IE blue eyes versus green eyes. That would be inaccurate, illogical, and unscientific.
@spiritualbully If green eyed people were to ROUTINELY do SIGNIFICANTLY better at something than blue eyed people, and if all outside variables were accounted for (living in same place with same opportunities, same education, same culture), yes. But that's not what we're dealing with; we're dealing with something closer to a single test of random blue eyed VS green eyed people, and in this single test the green eyed people solve the problem slightly faster, gaining an exponential advantage.
@spiritualbully [2/2] When is it appropriate? In the very least, the difference can't be so tiny that it's indistinguishable from background noise. Divide a bunch of white people into groups based on eye colour, and give each group a task. Let's say green eyes take 12 minutes, and blue eyes take 14. What does this prove? Diddly freakin' squat.
Humans have been around for about 200,000 years, so a head start of a few thousand is hardly cause for proclaiming superiority.
@Flyborg by your logic, if there's more than a billion people on this Earth, is a bomb that kills 300 people "within background noise"? is a murder of a person "too tiny to be distinguished from the enormous denominator"? Please first answer me what "superior" means, if anything at all.
2 min difference means 14-16% productivity, this is very real if its true statistic on a business perspective. The same is true if somebody is 2 inches taller. It proves enough to make business decision.
@Flyborg UNLESS and UNTIL you are willing to say you have zero preference living in New Guinea, Haiti vs industrialized Europe, US, Asia, your complaint that "a few thousand years hardly cause" is irrelevant. It's relevant enough for YOU to decide where you want to live and die.
@spiritualbully "It's relevant enough for YOU to decide where you want to live and die."
But still NOT logical to say who is "genetically superior". You're still missing the point.
"This place is better" =/= "The people here are genetically superior"
It's possible for one place to be better than another for reasons other than genetics. Example: I'd love to live in Japan or South Korea, but not Vietnam or North Korea. Same "race" - different history, and different outside variables (AKA luck).
@Flyborg i understand the difference between location and genetics. But when I DID ever mention genetic superiority, I was referring to narrowly the aspect of domesticating pigs. I wonder how long we have to give a population before we can say "they're just too stupid to do it". If a person was born a retard, you wouldn't wait a day to find out, but you don't know how long you need to wait "for all outside variables to be accounted for".
@spiritualbully Look at the title of this video, and listen to the point of this video. If you're not saying that taking longer to domesticate pigs means that this group is "genetically inferior", then what exactly ARE you trying to say? If not genetically, inferior how?
And you can replace the word "superior" with whatever you want, but it has zero effect on how logical the conclusion is. Margin of freaking error. On one day I could solve a problem in 10 minutes, another day it takes 15.
@Flyborg Is there any proof they "took longer" to domesticate pigs? Or is it possible they never will and never can? That's my question, at what point will we say "Ok, we can stop waiting, it's not going to happen"?
Let's answer that, then we can decide whether the INABILITY (not delayed ability) to do something justifies judging a population genetically.
Do you wait 10,000 years to find out whether retarded people can be doctors?
@spiritualbully Who's "they"? Random Amazon tribes? Who hasn't domesticated pigs? Which group/race/whatever has not and in your view CAN not do this?
At what point do we conclude that Americans can't build great pyramids like the Egyptians did? How long do we have to wait? (Same answer; the fact that something hasn't happened isn't evidence that it can not)
Circular reasoning at the end. We can detect retardation, and it's more than just taking 2% longer to figure something out.
@Flyborg OH, I'm sorry, I thought you were one of those people who read the book. Diamond says that New Guineans have had pigs on their land for thousands of years, but still have not domesticated them. How much longer should we give them?
I am convinced Americans are incapable of building pyramids and they are on average dumber than those who designed pyramids. Happy now?
You can detect retardation? How is that more than 2% of the genome? Or 2% of the population? Why so much certainty?
@spiritualbully You think that domesticating pigs is some kind of inevitable eventuality if only you're smart enough? Why? The pyramid analogy still stands. Another example: China's invention of gunpowder.
There's a SIGNIFICANT difference between retardation and non-retardation. If you give some building blocks to 5 kids and after a few minutes 4 of them have built something and the 5th one hasn't, you don't say "Whoop, I guess he's retarded". This is the equivalent of your "test".
@Flyborg yes, I believe domesticating pigs is pretty basic and you have to be pretty stupid to be unable to. It would be like me asking you what task retarded people are "unable to do". I admitted average Americans are dumber than the smart Egyptians, are you happy or not?
So how long do you wait for the 5th kid before you can say "That's it, he can't do it"? How do we know retarded people were given a fair shot? Maybe they're misunderstood!
@spiritualbully So you weren't joking that you have concluded that Americans are dumber than Egyptians? Are you aware that the average skyscraper is much more complex? I could have used anywhere in Europe as an example instead. Same conclusion? What about with gunpowder?
It doesn't matter how "basic" it is, it doesn't make it inevitable. Aztecs built large stone structures - Native Americans didn't. Why? They just didn't.
Making pottery is pretty simple. I've never done it. Guess I'm retarded.
@Flyborg Please try to read what I said. I said "average" American, the average American is not a skyscraper builder, and a skyscraper builder is smarter than a pyramid builder. So no, I was not joking.
I am willing to say, given a certain aspect of measurement, one person or one people can be smarter.
Building stone structures may have to do with availability of labor, incentive for building it, and availability of stone. None of which are excuses for New Guineans on pigs.
@spiritualbully Sure, and the "average" Egyptian didn't design the pyramids, either. What's your point? Americans haven't built pyramids. Neither have Europeans or Asians. It's been thousands of years, so should we conclude they can't?
What's the difference between stone structures and domesticated pigs? Are the New Guineans starving and in need of meat? Do they have extra food to give to pigs? What makes you think they have an incentive to domesticate pigs, anymore than build with stone?
@spiritualbully To clarify, it would be USEFUL for them to domesticate pigs (maybe, depending on their lifestyle / hunting habits), just like it would be USEFUL to live in stone buildings instead of cloth ones (depending on variables again), or it would be USEFUL to invent a bow and arrow, etc - but these things are greatly up to chance (among other variables) and there's no reason to say that any society SHOULD develop ANY of these things, or that the absence of one of them means theyre stupid.
@Flyborg out of respect of Peter's channel, let's take this conversation to PM, or to my channel, you are free to copy and paste with others. I just want to be free from character limits, while not burdening tooltime's time he could use moderating more important discussions.
Dude, what is it with your obsession about the prehistory of the domestication of pigs. Do you know *anything* about the subject? Do you know *anybody* -be they a European, Asian, Martian or a Mermaid- who could do it?
IQs are probably higher now than they've ever been. I already challenged you to go try domesticating one yourself. Take anybody you want-take 10 of the smartest people on Earth-and put them to the task. Using brainpower alone, no libraries or research teams.
@geodgereturns my obsession is defending myself against misunderstanding, but yes, I know people who farm pigs and I think I can manage it if I had any incentive. I currently have no pets, but I wouldn't consider it a hard task.
"farming pigs" and "domesticating wild pigs" are worlds apart, you goof. As is subsistence farming and having a pet.
You can't do it. The reason New Guineans didn't domesticate pig is cuz the wild pig stock didn't exist in New Guinea-it was introduced there as an already domesticated species. There've been but a handful of spontaneous domestications of pigs EVER in the entire history of humanity-each of them enabled by uniquely suited wild pig species living in the locale.
So? This is getting more absurd. You suggested New Guineans failed to domesticate the pig cuz they were less intelligent, and when I say it's extremely rare for anybody, anywhere, in the history of human kind, you jump to lump it with pig farming which you say you don't "consider a hard task". Well, hello. Duh. New Guineans pig farm too.
(PS -A 2005 study of the DNA of domesticated pigs gives evidence that a strain of pig was first domesticated in Ind./New Guinea. rofl)
@geodgereturns so you're saying New Guineans HAVE domesticated or farmed the pig, I must've misunderstood Diamond all along. If I knew this I wouldn't have called them dumb.
@geodgereturns so the argument now isn't that they didn't farm pigs, its that farming pigs apparently wasn't enough to stop them from hunting, they must really love hunting.
What did they domesticate? Did they domesticate any other animals for food or labor, that reduced the need for hunting?
You didn't read the book OR watch the doc, did you? This is a waste of time. You're just strawmanning the hell out of it. He explains when and how they got pigs, what crops were domesticated, and why they didn't domesticate animals for labor.
So ask yourself why you were so quick to denounce the arguments and evidence in Diamond without even bothering to hear it out? And so quick to attribute it to "lesser intelligence"? I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Do you?
@geodgereturns both Peter's video and mine state explicitly that I watched the first episode of the doc. Yes, I am aware they didn't domesticate animals for labor, but did they farm them for food, enough to reduce the hunting need?
I wasn't so quick to attribute it to less intelligence, I was asking at what point is it going to be justified.
Why did people here think up a million reasons why they didnt farm pigs for food, while you tell me they did, are they clueless too?
ROFL. All I know is that while I search on "pig" thru the comments, you and me are just about it. One more was used as purely as a play to show the holes in your logic. And the only other just said "there were no pigs a hundred years ago"-whatever that means.
Since I still don't think you "get it"-first time domesticating an animal is not easy. It is easier to farm and breed domesticated animals than to domesticate the first wild ones.
@geodgereturns SO I take it back. I meant to say (what I thought was true), that New Guineans didn't even manage to farm pigs, but you are saying they have. I will believe you and stop calling them dumb.
In earlier comments when I said domesticate, I really just meant farm, as in, feed them in a pen so you don't need to hunt them daily.
Next, raising domesticated pigs is easier than hunting them. Much. As long as you don't starve yourself to keep them fed and breeding.
New Guineans have kept pigs a long time. I didn't find any comments saying they didn't. But you can't keep a LOT of pigs if you can't keep fed a LOT of pigs. They eat a lot, btw. Whaddya gonna feed them?
Q. What farmed foods did Diamond say gave rise to the so-called "great civilizations"? Clue-not pigs. Answer-grains. Esp wheat and barley.
@geodgereturns "Next, raising domesticated pigs is easier than hunting them. Much. As long as you don't starve yourself to keep them fed and breeding."
That's exactly what I said, but not what some New Guinean apologist said, somebody actually told me they'll eat as much as humans and until they're ready to be eatened they'd have eaten 730 meals with a payback of 1-2 days for a tribe.
@geodgereturns if new guineans have farmed or domesticated pigs, everybody here who made excuses for why they have not, have wasted their time arguing for something that's wrong. Fair enough.
@geodgereturns Diamond said that they had the wild pig (or whatever pig we saw in the film) introduced to them for thousands of years, I guess he's lying. Or you think the time they had it isn't long enough.
How much will you pay me if I manage to pen up a few pigs and use them as food supply? Why are you certain I can't do something when you're not willing to put money where your mouth is?
I can't follow this well because youtube's comment feature sucks.
Diamond's book came out in 6 years before this ONE DNA study came out in 2005.
You prolly forgot. I told you I have wild hog on my property, and I *know* you'd starve to death before you could domesticate them. You don't know how to, and couldn't figure it out all by yourself. And we know these pigs'd be light years easier to domesticate now cuz they're feral descendants with the domesticated pig genes.
@Flyborg but the point and facts don't change, whether we speak of location, culture or genetic traits, you'd be lying to say there is no difference and you have no preference. I can ditch the word "superior" and replace it with "preferable" or "advantageous" and you'd have a hard time arguing.
I suppose this guy didn't pay close attention to the documentary, because Diamond later goes on to explain why people in certain areas didn't, and more importantly, couldn't, develop agriculture or domesticate animals.
@BananaHurricane Diamond made some good excuses, such as "they're too busy gathering and hunting" as why they didn't create metal tools (not that they didn't have ore or didn't know how to make fire). People here are even better at it, they say that domesticating a pig is uneconomical, or that they didn't "need to".
Tech change may have some genetic effects on population.
Europeans sterilised water by making fermented drinks like ales and beers in which the alcohol kill pathogens and made water safer to drink whereas Asians, from Near to Far East sterilised water by boiling it to make teas. People who have Asian ancestry sometimes (1 in 3 or 4) lack a gene that makes an enzyme that breaks down alcohol, whereas almost all Europeans ethnic people have the gene, possibly due to different selection pressures.
If anything, civilization results in weaker genetics, because we find ways to circumvent natural selection. Humans were in the process of evolving not to have wisdom teeth, because people used to die of the infections they caused, and therefore didn't have any or as many offspring. Then we invented dentistry, and in the "civilized" world a genetic trait that was "naturally" detrimental has become neutral. Think of all the genetic diseases we now treat rather than dying from them.
@TheLizardLass It's actually depressingly few, particularly those whose treatment would affect reproductive fitness substantially. At least when it comes to black and white "genetic diseases" and not things which have genetic factors. Retinal blastoma and PKU are ones I can think of and even with "treatment" these are still fairly limiting. Lysosomal storage disorders are still generally fatal before reproduction.
Comparatively we've made much larger strides in environmental diseases.
@TheLizardLass Weaker genetics in exchange for comfortable life? I'll take it. Sounds like you have no problem speaking of genetic traits making populations weaker, stronger as long as Eurasians are on the raw end. But if somebody was to ever speak of Eurasians having a genetic advantage , all hell breaks loose and it's flat out denial.
So let me ask you, is there ANYTHING you are willing to say Eurasians share genetically, that which is advantageous compared to Africans (and vice versa)?
@spiritualbully -- I never said anything about what Africans share with Eurasians --- just that civilization/technology put a halt to natural selection. We are now being selected for an unnatural environment, which is fine as long as we are able to continue creating that environment. If we ever lose the ability as the result of war or natural disaster it's difficult to say what traits will ensure survival then. Different population groups have advantages in different environments. (cont)
@spiritualbully --- It doesn't make either one weaker or stronger, than the other, my point was that every time we use our genetically large brains to alter ourselves or manipulate our environment we change the rules of the game so that traits which for natural being in a natural environment would be detrimental suddenly become a non-factor. The smartest have an advantage in society, but studies show they produce fewer offspring on average; so from an NS standpoint it's a disadvantage.
@xXmilesdavisXx do you hate racist people? Or only when they speak of whites being above blacks? Would you hate Diamond if he said that New Guineans are superior or smarter? Is it racist to say black people are better at basketball?
@spiritualbully --- it's not racist to acknowledge, based on scientific data, that the "black" population produces more professional grade basketball players per capita than other racial groups; it would be racist to say that all black people are better basketball players than all white people.
And although the question wasn't to me, I hate all discriminatory racism. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse; usually it just means different.
@TheLizardLass Just as a minor correction, it would be a generalization, not racism, to say black people are better than white people at basketball.
It would be racist if you said black people are better at basketball -because- they are black.
The thing that should be pointed out, consistently, is that race itself is essentially a pseudoscience. The genetic differences between races are so minor that they're usually not worth mentioning.
Primitive agricultural societies have much poorer health than hunter-gatherers due to high population density and little dietary variety. It's only in the last few centuries we've caught up thanks to improved sanitation.
The guy you're arguing against doesn't take into consideration that circumstances are different for different peoples. It's going to be a lot easier for people to progress in, say, the Mediterranean where the climate is favorable and resources are comparatively abundant than in Africa where the climate is horrible, resources are scarce, and there are about 10 MILLION ways to die per square inch. This is just a simplification but I think you understand my point.
@wsburroughs23 That may well be so, but only because it's much easier to get away with it. In a small village, where everyone who lives there was born there and is going to die there, and everyone knows everyone inside out and backwards, there's no way to follow any kind of socially pathological behavior pattern and not get detected and face the consequences. And, until quite recently, deviating from socially acceptable behavior in certain ways was an excellent way to get murdered by a mob.
You could have simply pointed out that the documentary series actually does explain why, according to the thesis of the series, some civilizations developed in ways that others didn't (IIRC, mostly in the last episode). It generally comes down to a lot of luck: What plants and animals were available to domesticate, how fertile the soil was and similar factors, none of which were selected by the people who settled each region since they weren't using such things yet.
"Heathen dirt eaters" hahaha. By the OTHER GUY's theory, if you're born in Africa (3rd World, etc) you're genetically inferior??? Makes No sense. I DO believe in cultural evolution and it can be seen on a GLOBAL scale now with the internet. Unfortunately, things like superstitious religious beliefs and dictatorships stop some countries from evolving.
Simple thing. Some guy one time thinks its a good idea to keep a pig as a pet and then eats it on a rainy day. This is then passed down as a social meme rather than a gene. Just because you didnt yet have that guy in your population doesnt mean ur shit, just unlucky.
I agree. If I may be blunt, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If a culture stays the same, it's because it has no need to change or adapt because they've already adapted to their surroundings.
ooh yah and thank you for finally confronting the inequality of Capitalism and its Feudalistic primitive regressive nature, its incompatibility with an otherwise progressive, technologically advanced, wealthy democratic civilization we're supposed to be ... when we are not democratic or advanced till we replace Free Market Capitalism with a real scientific 21st century evolved Egalitarian-Economic Equality-Technology-driven economic structure and society.
it's implied in what you said but i'll illustrate anyway:
nomads who innovated agriculture, earlier than others, were happenstance fortunate to not have to migrate far, to arrive at fertile land with nutrient mineral rich soil, nearby water with sustainable climate, to afford the luxury to stop wandering and learn irrigation, nurturing crops, breeding animals, astronomy-seasonal crop rotation, with food in the meantime so they dont starve, freeze or die in desert heat, as they learned.
Peter, thanks for making this video, I am very sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I agree, culture is NOT genetic, but it's Lamarckian.
And I wasn't equating civilization and technology with intelligence and superiority.
I DEFINITELY wasn't saying that a population being superior (whatever that means) makes them morally justified to do anything to another population. Yes I agree there's much more equity & equality in hunter societies, but with a price.
@t3tsuyaguy1 Not a problem. Culture is not genetic, as in, your language, experience is not passed on to your child via genes, and so your child is not born to know anything which you have acquired in a lifetime (in biology, this is known as the false and discredited hypothesis of Lamarckism). But culture, in fact IS Lamarckian, in that your child CAN and DOES learn your language, experience, accumulated knowledge, all of which you acquired within a lifetime (and not from your genes).
@spiritualbully I disagree with you. There is genetic evidence that facilitates social behavior.. There is also genetic evidence/markers that favor monogamy and relationships. And not to mention the genes that make it possible for the growth and developments of the human brain that makes us capable of learning. So, when you add up sociality+relationships+learning it is not surprising that society and culture developed. I'm saying it's purely genetic but genes have an influence.
@spiritualbully I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like giving genetics too much weight? Is this a nature vs nurture thing? I sort thought we'd moved on from that one. Nature and nurture in varying amounts.
I have a hard time discounting the ability of the environment to determine various aspects of cultural development.
While I can sympathize that environment is a huge reason for the Eurasian technological leaps over comparable American or Australasian societies in that the former societies benefited from commerce and cultural exchange more so than the others, it is foolish to believe that evolution on isolated, quasi-incestuous groups only affected skin color, facial structure, and a handful of other physical traits.
And honestly, the only reason hunter-gatherer or primitive agricultural societies are more "equal" is that there is so much less wealth in the first place there's only a small margin for inequality. The inequality of societies under corporatist states is artificial to a large degree. That which is not artificial is perfectly sensible and due to very real economic reasons and not some "unfairness" beyond the basic nature of reality.
Average intelligence for one thing, and probably some behavorial dispositions. Genetic diseases are tailored specifically toward certain ethnicities, so I don't think it's that far-fetched. Environment and "chance" definitely play a huge role in determining which populations have highest average intelligence (in terms of genetic potential). I'm not entirely clear on all the reasons some Eurasian populations came out on top.
I wonder. Is the average intelligence really so high in technologically advanced societies? I think that most people score within 5 points of 100 everywhere. Average people can't duplicate the tech they rely on. It seems like there is really just a few exceptional people upon whose shoulders the rest of us stand.
Also, I don't think that diseases are linked to Ethnicities, but rather population. Skin color isn't genetically linked to sickle-cell for instance.
@t3tsuyaguy1 "I wonder. Is the average intelligence really so high in technologically advanced societies? I think that most people score within 5 points of 100 everywhere."
Not in any sense that matters. The thing is, IQ is a normalized measure. Scoring and test content is continually adapted so that the average person in a given test context scores 100. If you use the same test in different regions, however, you'll find huge regional differences.
@t3tsuyaguy1 That doesn't mean that the causes of the differences are genetic. All kinds of things, including education, nutrition, culture etc could conceivably contribute here. However, this should not let one lose sight of the fact that there are vast demonstrable differences in mental capacities in areas critical to modern civilization. This is a problem for certain regions regardless of what the causes are. If the causes are genetic - that is quite simply a disaster for the regions.
@t3tsuyaguy1 Although I don't want to stand behind the specific results here, a quick google, just to give you an idea of the demonstrable from an easily accessible source, try to google "iq and the wealth of nations". But obviously you can produce different numbers with different tests and people can always argue that test X did not actually measure something that matters. Personally I find that highly unconvincing though, given the predictive power of IQ tests.
When I said ethnicities, I was referring to distinct isolated, quasi-incestuous populations, i.e. Arabic, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, et cetera. I'm not saying that average intelligence is necessarily vastly higher, but that it is statistically greater. Also, I think that many Eurasian populations have greater numbers of intellectual outliers (especially among males) - hence more geniuses can drive much greater and quicker progression than elsewhere.
Much of the problem lies beyond the genomes of these people, and a lot of the genetic discrepancies will fade with time as populations blend more and more together, so I don't see this being a problem for more than the next half century at most. Foreign investment both in terms of capital and capitalists in currently undeveloped areas is almost certainly inevitable as states skew economies in developed countries. We'll see how much of the gap is truly innate and how much is due to environment.
@doucher337 I'm not sure we disagree in a substantial way.
I tend to think that geography allowed for the development of agriculture and safety from predators in certain regions. This led to development of more complicated social selection pressures and increased population density. This allowed for the greater development of critical thinking and cultural evolution.
I think much of your analysis is pretty good, and we will see illumination on the issue in the next half century.
@doucher337 I would dissuade you from one point. "(especially among males)" I think we are robbed of any chance to meaningfully evaluate the intellectual prowess of women in male dominated cultures, as they were institutionally barred from contributing. Some woman could have possessed the intellect to right "The Principia" 100 years before Newton, but would not have any recourse to do so; thus, we would never know.
As a statistical matter of fact, female intelligence is more scattered around the average than males. While many women are very intelligent, and I would not claim diminish that in any way, there are more male geniuses than female. Other facts bar women from holding as much sway in technical intellectual fields as men (especially for married women, e.g. child-rearing).
@doucher337 Some good facts. Are you saying that female testing scores show more grouping than male scores? I would accept that. It's verifiable.
Still, if that is what you are saying, could this not be a product of social selection pressures? Western history is filed with the rejection of intelligent women. Is it not possible that the intellectual outliers were bred out? Would this not suggest that there is no natural link between gender and genius, but only an artificial one?
@t3tsuyaguy1 I've thought of this before and I realized that greater male variation can be explained by sexual selection. Supposing that females are not monogamous and choose only the best males, parents who produce more varied male offspring will on average produce more children than those who produce reliably mediocre males. A female's reproductive capacity is relatively fixed, so it makes more sense to make them reliably mediocre rather than haphazardly excellent.
@t3tsuyaguy1 This is not an excuse for rejecting female intelligence. I think it is disgusting and frustrating.
I just thought of another thing. Supposing that human culture has been male dominated on evolutionary time scales (there is good evidence for this), one might think that men who were action oriented were more successful, and women who could influence social events covertly were more successful. This would give a biological explanation for gender differences in math and langauge
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Yeah. I think your on to something there. I'd love to see some research in that area. It can be hard to keep people from getting upset though. Notice how you felt the need to clarify your respect for female intelligence. I totally understand that, but it's indicative of the difficulty in researching these things.
Or you could review some papers that investigated these variables in societies with a high level of equality and a low level of equality. Turns out there are strong indicators that female performance in some cultures on these fields might be inflicted through variables such as self-esteem and support.
And have nothing to do with innate ability.
There are excellent cultural explanations available, well supported by evidence.
There are people who arent even exposed to the concept of ownership, personally I believe that they are the winners in life, while the rest of us being enslaved by this huge and complex superorganism called the society are spiritually inferior (maybe our genetics is what makes us born into such a slavery of the mind? ^_^).
@Threemicsrecords Yeah, that's true. Actually, after humans adapted agriculture our brain sizes and statures decreased due to the poor nutrition of agricultural foods. It has take us up until now to catch up to the brain size of our ancestors. If brain size decreased after agriculture, I don't think it would be implausible to suggest we actually got dumber after adopting agriculture.
I can agree with this. Whatever they lack, they make up for in other ways. It's kind of like comparing bats living in different parts of the world. It doesn't matter how the bats feed or what structures they use, all that matters is that they survive.
This is interesting. We were talking about this exact subject in my introductory Anthropology class today. A few seconds after I realized that, you say "If you've ever taken an introduction to Anthropology class...". Cool :)
Quick point: Unless you want to splurge a few million dollars, a genetic test only compares genetic markers, not sequencing and comparing entire genomes.
Cultural evolution is largely influenced by genetic evolution (look into the FOXP2 gene/protein, in all likelihood its appearance is responsible for our species ability with complex language (written or spoken).
If one group of isolated humans lost that and therefore couldn't develop written language, I would say they are probably "inferior".
It is entirely possible that European societies desire to become sedentary, develop agriculture etc was influenced by genetics.
Just because people have decided to mistreat supposedly inferior races/cultures doesn't affirm the statement that all cultures or genetic groups are equal.
3:37 erm... food security, regularity and easier collection (ie hunting can take hours and you can still come back empty handed), able to prepare for winter/famine and pop growth. I would've thought that obvious.
I would consider a measure of "fitness" to be a nations resilience to environmental changes. We have better food security, we have housing that better protects us from the elements, we have medicines and hygeine practices that better protect us from disease.
Then you have things like "knowledge", how much we know about ourselves, history, environment etc. Martial prowess (we could effortlessly wipe out any and all tribal societies, they could not), population size and geographical diversity...
Au contraire!
Agricultural societies gave rise to Down's syndrome.
They now survive long enough to breed.
Ecce Neohomo!
WetlandsRemediation 6 months ago
Great video as always. I especially like the part where you point out that the equality is better in hunter-gatherer societies than that of "modern civilization" :-)
fourtrees44 7 months ago
Great vid!eo, and well put!
Fiercefist 7 months ago
about gobekli tepe which perdate known farming
abarrathemaster 8 months ago
tt, western europe did not breed livestock or sow crops better than asians ,arabs ,indians or africans ...we simply had an age of REASON and they did not .we didnt invent steel or guns or ship building .we embraced knowlege ITSELF ,we merely copied what worked ,then,over time , improved it .per the scientific method .we certainy did not invent conquest ,imperialism slavery or genocide
H.G ,. societys are not more moral ,just or equitable than pastoral societys ,they merely starve more often
woodenmajor 8 months ago 3
I'll stick with modern division of labour, but that's just my preference.
Decentralism 10 months ago
Non-hunter-gatherer civilizations are superior due to the higher long term survival probability.
Also hunter-gatherers dont have anything else to share, so Im not sure how youd go about comparing them. The worst of the civilized is probably still off better by far than any hunter gatherer.
I just cant help but feel youre ignorıng the human tendency to shift the frame of reference.
Nerusai 10 months ago
arent tribes basically a private family "civilization'' or is that word only attributed to large communities?
superjam18 10 months ago
lol @ thumbnail
zapo147 10 months ago
here, i was just looking for it Jared Diamond.
watch?v=bgnmT-Y_rGQ&feature=related
Guns, Germs and Steel
his documentory if you havent seen it but its pretty interesting and deals with the question of why humanity is so unequally develloped.
Quiestre 10 months ago
You forget another important thing. Not only is the question why should they domesticate animals etc. BUT can they domesticate anything? is there a plant provinding enough energie like weat or rice. are there workable animas like cows or horses to plow the land. in most cases those things are not provided in for example africa(middle south) or some of the tropical reigions and thus those people never had the chance to create a high society
Quiestre 10 months ago
You would make an awesome professor.
rileed 10 months ago
This guy (the 10,000 year guy) doesn't know much about anything lol. Just about every continent had 'civilizations' and 'savages'.
HybridD91 10 months ago
I think you hit on it with the word "need". For example, native Americans had so much land and natural resources available per capita that a simple lifestyle was all that was called for. There was never a need to industrialize, and therefore, it never happened. The was plenty of proof of high intelligence of the native Americans as a people and they were resourceful. I think that old proverb, "necessity is the mother of invention" is very true.
kenotube 10 months ago
@kenotube It's funny you mention Native Americans because a lot of Natives didn't like 'destroying' the land thus not wanting to do much to it, not to forget, a lot were nomads. When you go to Mesoamerica however, you see people settling in one region(s). Allowing them to 'advance'.
HybridD91 10 months ago
I think a lot of smart people on YouTube waste too much time on isolated idiots.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 10 months ago
Responding to self-imposed ignorance is a very useless thing to do.
I don't think you understood the book very well either tooltime. The author attempted to show that the advance of civilization was entirely environmental in nature. I think he did a good job of showing that every plant and animal that could be domesticated was, and that every material that could be made into tools were. Certain places on earth simply have no domesticatable plants or animals and no metal deposits.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 10 months ago
what about the fac that western european countries which are slightly advanced. do not strap bmbs to thir children and send them out to die. but like in japan and china. where people dont starve and live homeless LIKE in america
TheNightrunner666 10 months ago
Humanity is a collage of many colours and textures, but we are all the same painting.
niriop 10 months ago
@wsburroughs23 did you seriously just say psychopathy and sociopathy have no genetic basis and/or are perfectly nurtured, behavior, chosen?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
I think there were and are many civilisations who have not become farmers, allthough it would advanced that society - simply because they live in regions where you just can't grow anything.
That's a major point in Diamond's book: The "advanced" civilisations just had the luck to originate from a very fertile region. And that has nothing to do with good genes and everything with beeing dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.
MARI0LAND 10 months ago
"Sex at Dawn", the excellent book that Dan Savage has been recommending, talks a lot about this very thing. Hunter gathering societies are in many ways better off socially than agricultural based societies, although I guess you could say it's all pretty relative.
GodlessGirI 10 months ago
The truth is population density controls speed of culture evolution. Some places like Africa there is too much deadly factors that held(and are still holding) population density down so critical mass of density(for certain "improvements") was never achieved. And even now old and stone hard cultural norms control those territories. There is also other problems like diseases that will lower average IQ in near of equator and black skin creates less vitamin D that lowers IQ and health also.
SystemLordNemo 10 months ago
@SystemLordNemo And in Africa there is and was problems to create stable states because of terrain. SystemLordNemo: "black skin creates less vitamin D" in certain places remember! SystemLordNemo: "that lowers IQ and health also" and weaker heath lowers average IQ you get the point.
SystemLordNemo 10 months ago
Civilisation is really just a way of coping with the higher population that agriculture allows. It's basically just a merging of tribes with the strongest chieftains taking the top jobs. The social and technological benefits that come along with it are nice, sure, but I doubt they were what the parents of civilisation had in mind when they started planting their fields.
athywren 10 months ago
I love hearing this guy speak. A breath of fresh air.
surshot56 10 months ago
So by this retard's logic, the people of the 16th-17th centuries are genetically inferior as they didn't have industrialisation and liberal governance theories?
arcanics1971 10 months ago
We've looked at dna sequences across societies and there is no difference. WTF is this guy talking about....
healthyaddict 10 months ago
Eskimos.
Koda924 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY yes, and you are the same species as a retarded person, you can breed with a retarded person too. Doesn't mean we would treat you & a retard completely the same without some consideration of differences in needs.
You started by asking if I was Eurasian, I answered the best I can, only for you to tell me we're all African, so to you, a person can't be more or less non-African, end of story.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY you defined all humans as 100% African, rendering the term completely meaningless.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@wsburroughs23
Highly doubt that. Primitive agricultural societies had little record keeping, so any psychological insights have to be based on what evidence does exist. As far as I know, most evidence points toward much greater prevalence of psychoses in pre-industrial societies. In addition, murder rates were higher, disease was more common and more often fatal, infant and child mortality was astronomical, and the standard of living was below what Americans call poverty.
doucher337 10 months ago
I'm genetically superior and I approve this message
Joerexia 10 months ago 2
well maybe hitler and the nazis were genetically superior sense they invented a lot of technology
keggerous 10 months ago
@keggerous what's your point?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY So according to you, my hypothetical African ancestors had to slip out of Africa undetected by history recorded in multiple locations, without the invention of ships, cars, airplanes, and being half African children, my ancestors were treated fairly and survived their time. Yeah, that's possible, how much are you willing to bet? (since when was this about me?)
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY "In fact we all 100 percent African really."
Regardless of our skin color, we are all African. Ok then, you asked a question rhetorically, I think I am done with you.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY ok, so next time you say "as far as I know" I'll make sure I ask a million questions. Even if you don't admit "as far as you know" I'll ask away anyway, just to make sure you're certain to my satisfaction.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY so I'm not the only person who didn't read the book. Diamond states in the video, that New Guineans have had pigs for thousands of years (not sure how he knows, but i'll take his word for it). I dont know how long you need to wait before you can give up and say "they just can't do it, forget it".
Do you go to a special ed classroom to ask for college homework help? Why not? Everybody at some point didnt know college material, right?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY by knowing the history of my parents and ancestors. but that's of course not good enough for you. and no, we know what people who are 50% African look like. (did you notice that people quickly said I was Asian without seeing my videos in color? Clearly they can identify Asian traits on me even when skin color isn't clear)
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY I wasn't the person who used the phrase genetic significant, so why are you asking me what I didn't say? And I know I am Eurasian, among other groups of classifications, but to be on the safe side I said "as far as I know" Are you certain of everything you say? Do you never say "as far as I know"?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY if you are saying Eurasians are more diverse than Africans, I agree. But that wasn't the argument. YES, you CAN group Europeans and Asians separately, and it would be more meaningful. Eurasian was a geographical and civilized group used in Diamond's book, and the person above, says "civilization may make genes weaker", my point was, if he said "civilization may make genes stronger" (which is what people say I said) then people would have the opposite reaction (and you prove it)
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY ask the person who said "civilization, if anything makes genetics weaker". But no, Eurasians or "civilizations" are not entirely arbitrary, even if there's no perfect definition. You can replace the words with a more objective or understandable measure, and facts won't change.
Since you don't know what's genetically significant, I don't think your question is serious.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY what's the genetically signigicant difference between a male and a female other than superficial physical traits?
Wait, why am I arguing this with you? This is far removed from the subject. What I said was, why is it people have no problem saying that Eurasians are genetically weaker, but God forbid the contrary to be mentioned. Do you agree?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY "What's genetically significant about that particular group? I mean why not single out any arbitray group like Anglo Welsh Irish or South European North african?"
Aside from the fact Diamond choose to speak of them as such, nothing.
"What's genetically significant about you other than some superfical physical traits?"
I won't answer until you tell me what counts as "genetically significant", the minute I answer something you'll say "that's not good enough, try again"
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@PostITnoteGUY it's a term used in Diamond's book, people who live or descendent from Europe and Asia (the Eurasian supercontinent)
Yes, I am one as far as I know.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Africans were the first to develop complex societies, and despite their isolation even the Native Americans were culturally ahead of the Britannic Celts, Germans and Slavic people before and during most of Roman times.
The Arabian people were the most culturally advanced throughout the most of the Middle Ages.
So, a drastic climate change comes around in Africa, and religion brings an end to the Arabic Golden age, and he's blaming genetics?
F3YR3 10 months ago
@F3YR3 are you saying basically, that Europeans are just lucky enough to have never suffered drastic climate change, as if they haven't been through dark ages and religious wars?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Two people are handcuffed, and each is given a small piece of wire to try and pick the lock. After they both struggle constantly for 10 hours straight, one of them happens to succeed, and just a few minutes later, turns to the other and says: "Aha! I've been free from my handcuffs for SEVERAL MINUTES! You suck! I'm superior to you!" (ignoring the 10 hours)
You could add to this analogy that the person with free hands now starts to work on other things, exponentially gaining more advantage.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg does the word superior mean ANYTHING to you at all? If not, fine. But if it does, can you explain to mean WHEN it is ever appropriate? If you look at 10 hours +/- 10 minutes on a greater scale, isn't it life and death in certain context?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully [1/2] It could be life and death - but does it mean the person who took 600 minutes can brag that they're "superior" to the person who took 605 minutes? It would be like getting 95 on a test, while someone else got 94, and calling them stupid. In any case, it's WELL within the margin of error, so it's a bit presumptuous/arrogant to start speculating about "superiority".
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg when its life and death, I don't care what you call it. I'd rather live and be called inferior than argue with somebody over a word he doesn't like.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully *whoosh* There goes the point.
Margin of error. It would be factually accurate to say that the results are inferior, but not the person or group, IE blue eyes versus green eyes. That would be inaccurate, illogical, and unscientific.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg would you admit that blue eyed people are more productive if the statistics were true, but not necessarily superior in other aspects?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully If green eyed people were to ROUTINELY do SIGNIFICANTLY better at something than blue eyed people, and if all outside variables were accounted for (living in same place with same opportunities, same education, same culture), yes. But that's not what we're dealing with; we're dealing with something closer to a single test of random blue eyed VS green eyed people, and in this single test the green eyed people solve the problem slightly faster, gaining an exponential advantage.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@spiritualbully [2/2] When is it appropriate? In the very least, the difference can't be so tiny that it's indistinguishable from background noise. Divide a bunch of white people into groups based on eye colour, and give each group a task. Let's say green eyes take 12 minutes, and blue eyes take 14. What does this prove? Diddly freakin' squat.
Humans have been around for about 200,000 years, so a head start of a few thousand is hardly cause for proclaiming superiority.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg by your logic, if there's more than a billion people on this Earth, is a bomb that kills 300 people "within background noise"? is a murder of a person "too tiny to be distinguished from the enormous denominator"? Please first answer me what "superior" means, if anything at all.
2 min difference means 14-16% productivity, this is very real if its true statistic on a business perspective. The same is true if somebody is 2 inches taller. It proves enough to make business decision.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@Flyborg UNLESS and UNTIL you are willing to say you have zero preference living in New Guinea, Haiti vs industrialized Europe, US, Asia, your complaint that "a few thousand years hardly cause" is irrelevant. It's relevant enough for YOU to decide where you want to live and die.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully "It's relevant enough for YOU to decide where you want to live and die."
But still NOT logical to say who is "genetically superior". You're still missing the point.
"This place is better" =/= "The people here are genetically superior"
It's possible for one place to be better than another for reasons other than genetics. Example: I'd love to live in Japan or South Korea, but not Vietnam or North Korea. Same "race" - different history, and different outside variables (AKA luck).
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg i understand the difference between location and genetics. But when I DID ever mention genetic superiority, I was referring to narrowly the aspect of domesticating pigs. I wonder how long we have to give a population before we can say "they're just too stupid to do it". If a person was born a retard, you wouldn't wait a day to find out, but you don't know how long you need to wait "for all outside variables to be accounted for".
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Look at the title of this video, and listen to the point of this video. If you're not saying that taking longer to domesticate pigs means that this group is "genetically inferior", then what exactly ARE you trying to say? If not genetically, inferior how?
And you can replace the word "superior" with whatever you want, but it has zero effect on how logical the conclusion is. Margin of freaking error. On one day I could solve a problem in 10 minutes, another day it takes 15.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg Is there any proof they "took longer" to domesticate pigs? Or is it possible they never will and never can? That's my question, at what point will we say "Ok, we can stop waiting, it's not going to happen"?
Let's answer that, then we can decide whether the INABILITY (not delayed ability) to do something justifies judging a population genetically.
Do you wait 10,000 years to find out whether retarded people can be doctors?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Who's "they"? Random Amazon tribes? Who hasn't domesticated pigs? Which group/race/whatever has not and in your view CAN not do this?
At what point do we conclude that Americans can't build great pyramids like the Egyptians did? How long do we have to wait? (Same answer; the fact that something hasn't happened isn't evidence that it can not)
Circular reasoning at the end. We can detect retardation, and it's more than just taking 2% longer to figure something out.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg OH, I'm sorry, I thought you were one of those people who read the book. Diamond says that New Guineans have had pigs on their land for thousands of years, but still have not domesticated them. How much longer should we give them?
I am convinced Americans are incapable of building pyramids and they are on average dumber than those who designed pyramids. Happy now?
You can detect retardation? How is that more than 2% of the genome? Or 2% of the population? Why so much certainty?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully You think that domesticating pigs is some kind of inevitable eventuality if only you're smart enough? Why? The pyramid analogy still stands. Another example: China's invention of gunpowder.
There's a SIGNIFICANT difference between retardation and non-retardation. If you give some building blocks to 5 kids and after a few minutes 4 of them have built something and the 5th one hasn't, you don't say "Whoop, I guess he's retarded". This is the equivalent of your "test".
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg yes, I believe domesticating pigs is pretty basic and you have to be pretty stupid to be unable to. It would be like me asking you what task retarded people are "unable to do". I admitted average Americans are dumber than the smart Egyptians, are you happy or not?
So how long do you wait for the 5th kid before you can say "That's it, he can't do it"? How do we know retarded people were given a fair shot? Maybe they're misunderstood!
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully So you weren't joking that you have concluded that Americans are dumber than Egyptians? Are you aware that the average skyscraper is much more complex? I could have used anywhere in Europe as an example instead. Same conclusion? What about with gunpowder?
It doesn't matter how "basic" it is, it doesn't make it inevitable. Aztecs built large stone structures - Native Americans didn't. Why? They just didn't.
Making pottery is pretty simple. I've never done it. Guess I'm retarded.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg Please try to read what I said. I said "average" American, the average American is not a skyscraper builder, and a skyscraper builder is smarter than a pyramid builder. So no, I was not joking.
I am willing to say, given a certain aspect of measurement, one person or one people can be smarter.
Building stone structures may have to do with availability of labor, incentive for building it, and availability of stone. None of which are excuses for New Guineans on pigs.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Sure, and the "average" Egyptian didn't design the pyramids, either. What's your point? Americans haven't built pyramids. Neither have Europeans or Asians. It's been thousands of years, so should we conclude they can't?
What's the difference between stone structures and domesticated pigs? Are the New Guineans starving and in need of meat? Do they have extra food to give to pigs? What makes you think they have an incentive to domesticate pigs, anymore than build with stone?
Flyborg 10 months ago
@spiritualbully To clarify, it would be USEFUL for them to domesticate pigs (maybe, depending on their lifestyle / hunting habits), just like it would be USEFUL to live in stone buildings instead of cloth ones (depending on variables again), or it would be USEFUL to invent a bow and arrow, etc - but these things are greatly up to chance (among other variables) and there's no reason to say that any society SHOULD develop ANY of these things, or that the absence of one of them means theyre stupid.
Flyborg 10 months ago
@Flyborg out of respect of Peter's channel, let's take this conversation to PM, or to my channel, you are free to copy and paste with others. I just want to be free from character limits, while not burdening tooltime's time he could use moderating more important discussions.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
Dude, what is it with your obsession about the prehistory of the domestication of pigs. Do you know *anything* about the subject? Do you know *anybody* -be they a European, Asian, Martian or a Mermaid- who could do it?
IQs are probably higher now than they've ever been. I already challenged you to go try domesticating one yourself. Take anybody you want-take 10 of the smartest people on Earth-and put them to the task. Using brainpower alone, no libraries or research teams.
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns my obsession is defending myself against misunderstanding, but yes, I know people who farm pigs and I think I can manage it if I had any incentive. I currently have no pets, but I wouldn't consider it a hard task.
and if I do it? What would it prove to you?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully ROFL
"farming pigs" and "domesticating wild pigs" are worlds apart, you goof. As is subsistence farming and having a pet.
You can't do it. The reason New Guineans didn't domesticate pig is cuz the wild pig stock didn't exist in New Guinea-it was introduced there as an already domesticated species. There've been but a handful of spontaneous domestications of pigs EVER in the entire history of humanity-each of them enabled by uniquely suited wild pig species living in the locale.
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns both have one thing in common, no need to hunt them when you need them.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
So? This is getting more absurd. You suggested New Guineans failed to domesticate the pig cuz they were less intelligent, and when I say it's extremely rare for anybody, anywhere, in the history of human kind, you jump to lump it with pig farming which you say you don't "consider a hard task". Well, hello. Duh. New Guineans pig farm too.
(PS -A 2005 study of the DNA of domesticated pigs gives evidence that a strain of pig was first domesticated in Ind./New Guinea. rofl)
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns so you're saying New Guineans HAVE domesticated or farmed the pig, I must've misunderstood Diamond all along. If I knew this I wouldn't have called them dumb.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
One more time: domesticating pigs - farming pigs. Not Same Thing.
Native Americans didn't domesticate pigs. Are they dumb?
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns New Guineans did both, is that correct? If they did, it's irrelevant now.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
We *know* they farmed pigs. Diamond knew they farmed pigs. Everybody knows they farm pigs.
They *may* have domesticated a breed of pig. So says one DNA study. (Larson, Science, 2005).
The thing is, whether they did or didn't is irrelevant to whether they had "lesser intelligence". We know they domesticated other things.
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns so the argument now isn't that they didn't farm pigs, its that farming pigs apparently wasn't enough to stop them from hunting, they must really love hunting.
What did they domesticate? Did they domesticate any other animals for food or labor, that reduced the need for hunting?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
You didn't read the book OR watch the doc, did you? This is a waste of time. You're just strawmanning the hell out of it. He explains when and how they got pigs, what crops were domesticated, and why they didn't domesticate animals for labor.
So ask yourself why you were so quick to denounce the arguments and evidence in Diamond without even bothering to hear it out? And so quick to attribute it to "lesser intelligence"? I'm pretty sure I know the answer. Do you?
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns both Peter's video and mine state explicitly that I watched the first episode of the doc. Yes, I am aware they didn't domesticate animals for labor, but did they farm them for food, enough to reduce the hunting need?
I wasn't so quick to attribute it to less intelligence, I was asking at what point is it going to be justified.
Why did people here think up a million reasons why they didnt farm pigs for food, while you tell me they did, are they clueless too?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
ROFL. All I know is that while I search on "pig" thru the comments, you and me are just about it. One more was used as purely as a play to show the holes in your logic. And the only other just said "there were no pigs a hundred years ago"-whatever that means.
Since I still don't think you "get it"-first time domesticating an animal is not easy. It is easier to farm and breed domesticated animals than to domesticate the first wild ones.
..cont
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns I will PM the comment, it was on my video
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@geodgereturns SO I take it back. I meant to say (what I thought was true), that New Guineans didn't even manage to farm pigs, but you are saying they have. I will believe you and stop calling them dumb.
In earlier comments when I said domesticate, I really just meant farm, as in, feed them in a pen so you don't need to hunt them daily.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
Next, raising domesticated pigs is easier than hunting them. Much. As long as you don't starve yourself to keep them fed and breeding.
New Guineans have kept pigs a long time. I didn't find any comments saying they didn't. But you can't keep a LOT of pigs if you can't keep fed a LOT of pigs. They eat a lot, btw. Whaddya gonna feed them?
Q. What farmed foods did Diamond say gave rise to the so-called "great civilizations"? Clue-not pigs. Answer-grains. Esp wheat and barley.
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@geodgereturns "Next, raising domesticated pigs is easier than hunting them. Much. As long as you don't starve yourself to keep them fed and breeding."
That's exactly what I said, but not what some New Guinean apologist said, somebody actually told me they'll eat as much as humans and until they're ready to be eatened they'd have eaten 730 meals with a payback of 1-2 days for a tribe.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@geodgereturns if new guineans have farmed or domesticated pigs, everybody here who made excuses for why they have not, have wasted their time arguing for something that's wrong. Fair enough.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@geodgereturns Diamond said that they had the wild pig (or whatever pig we saw in the film) introduced to them for thousands of years, I guess he's lying. Or you think the time they had it isn't long enough.
How much will you pay me if I manage to pen up a few pigs and use them as food supply? Why are you certain I can't do something when you're not willing to put money where your mouth is?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully
I can't follow this well because youtube's comment feature sucks.
Diamond's book came out in 6 years before this ONE DNA study came out in 2005.
You prolly forgot. I told you I have wild hog on my property, and I *know* you'd starve to death before you could domesticate them. You don't know how to, and couldn't figure it out all by yourself. And we know these pigs'd be light years easier to domesticate now cuz they're feral descendants with the domesticated pig genes.
geodgereturns 10 months ago
@Flyborg but the point and facts don't change, whether we speak of location, culture or genetic traits, you'd be lying to say there is no difference and you have no preference. I can ditch the word "superior" and replace it with "preferable" or "advantageous" and you'd have a hard time arguing.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
I suppose this guy didn't pay close attention to the documentary, because Diamond later goes on to explain why people in certain areas didn't, and more importantly, couldn't, develop agriculture or domesticate animals.
BananaHurricane 10 months ago
@BananaHurricane Diamond made some good excuses, such as "they're too busy gathering and hunting" as why they didn't create metal tools (not that they didn't have ore or didn't know how to make fire). People here are even better at it, they say that domesticating a pig is uneconomical, or that they didn't "need to".
spiritualbully 10 months ago
There must be something in the asian gene pool that makes them sleep through Anthropology 101 classes.
mku17ra 10 months ago
@mku17ra were you expecting me to get mad over that?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I was shooting for the opposite effect. It *is* a stupid stereotype
mku17ra 10 months ago
@mku17ra maybe because its not very true, I really wouldnt care one way or the other, but I wouldn't say its stupid if it's true.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Tech change may have some genetic effects on population.
Europeans sterilised water by making fermented drinks like ales and beers in which the alcohol kill pathogens and made water safer to drink whereas Asians, from Near to Far East sterilised water by boiling it to make teas. People who have Asian ancestry sometimes (1 in 3 or 4) lack a gene that makes an enzyme that breaks down alcohol, whereas almost all Europeans ethnic people have the gene, possibly due to different selection pressures.
Teloculos 10 months ago
If anything, civilization results in weaker genetics, because we find ways to circumvent natural selection. Humans were in the process of evolving not to have wisdom teeth, because people used to die of the infections they caused, and therefore didn't have any or as many offspring. Then we invented dentistry, and in the "civilized" world a genetic trait that was "naturally" detrimental has become neutral. Think of all the genetic diseases we now treat rather than dying from them.
TheLizardLass 10 months ago
@TheLizardLass It's actually depressingly few, particularly those whose treatment would affect reproductive fitness substantially. At least when it comes to black and white "genetic diseases" and not things which have genetic factors. Retinal blastoma and PKU are ones I can think of and even with "treatment" these are still fairly limiting. Lysosomal storage disorders are still generally fatal before reproduction.
Comparatively we've made much larger strides in environmental diseases.
LoneGunman90 10 months ago
@TheLizardLass Weaker genetics in exchange for comfortable life? I'll take it. Sounds like you have no problem speaking of genetic traits making populations weaker, stronger as long as Eurasians are on the raw end. But if somebody was to ever speak of Eurasians having a genetic advantage , all hell breaks loose and it's flat out denial.
So let me ask you, is there ANYTHING you are willing to say Eurasians share genetically, that which is advantageous compared to Africans (and vice versa)?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully -- I never said anything about what Africans share with Eurasians --- just that civilization/technology put a halt to natural selection. We are now being selected for an unnatural environment, which is fine as long as we are able to continue creating that environment. If we ever lose the ability as the result of war or natural disaster it's difficult to say what traits will ensure survival then. Different population groups have advantages in different environments. (cont)
TheLizardLass 10 months ago
@spiritualbully --- It doesn't make either one weaker or stronger, than the other, my point was that every time we use our genetically large brains to alter ourselves or manipulate our environment we change the rules of the game so that traits which for natural being in a natural environment would be detrimental suddenly become a non-factor. The smartest have an advantage in society, but studies show they produce fewer offspring on average; so from an NS standpoint it's a disadvantage.
TheLizardLass 10 months ago
@TheLizardLass reminds me the movie Idiocracy, I don't know how anybody can watch it and not support eugenics.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
Wow, I hate racist people, and tooltime you laid this shit out so well I love it.
xXmilesdavisXx 10 months ago
@xXmilesdavisXx do you hate racist people? Or only when they speak of whites being above blacks? Would you hate Diamond if he said that New Guineans are superior or smarter? Is it racist to say black people are better at basketball?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully --- it's not racist to acknowledge, based on scientific data, that the "black" population produces more professional grade basketball players per capita than other racial groups; it would be racist to say that all black people are better basketball players than all white people.
And although the question wasn't to me, I hate all discriminatory racism. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse; usually it just means different.
TheLizardLass 10 months ago
@TheLizardLass Just as a minor correction, it would be a generalization, not racism, to say black people are better than white people at basketball.
It would be racist if you said black people are better at basketball -because- they are black.
The thing that should be pointed out, consistently, is that race itself is essentially a pseudoscience. The genetic differences between races are so minor that they're usually not worth mentioning.
skullz291 10 months ago 4
@skullz291 --- right you are.
This is why I shouldn't dash comments off quickly while tired; I tend not to notice that I didn't say quite what I meant :)
TheLizardLass 10 months ago
Primitive agricultural societies have much poorer health than hunter-gatherers due to high population density and little dietary variety. It's only in the last few centuries we've caught up thanks to improved sanitation.
AceOfSevens 10 months ago
The guy you're arguing against doesn't take into consideration that circumstances are different for different peoples. It's going to be a lot easier for people to progress in, say, the Mediterranean where the climate is favorable and resources are comparatively abundant than in Africa where the climate is horrible, resources are scarce, and there are about 10 MILLION ways to die per square inch. This is just a simplification but I think you understand my point.
His thinking is plainly flawed.
Bobbiethejean 10 months ago
@wsburroughs23 That may well be so, but only because it's much easier to get away with it. In a small village, where everyone who lives there was born there and is going to die there, and everyone knows everyone inside out and backwards, there's no way to follow any kind of socially pathological behavior pattern and not get detected and face the consequences. And, until quite recently, deviating from socially acceptable behavior in certain ways was an excellent way to get murdered by a mob.
evensgrey 10 months ago
You could have simply pointed out that the documentary series actually does explain why, according to the thesis of the series, some civilizations developed in ways that others didn't (IIRC, mostly in the last episode). It generally comes down to a lot of luck: What plants and animals were available to domesticate, how fertile the soil was and similar factors, none of which were selected by the people who settled each region since they weren't using such things yet.
evensgrey 10 months ago
"A long time ago someone invented agriculture. That means 'we' are smart."
volbla 10 months ago
Nice arguments FOR socialism :-D
Thats why people in scandinavia (also europe) are so happy and equal...
TheDivineCellphone 10 months ago
"Heathen dirt eaters" hahaha. By the OTHER GUY's theory, if you're born in Africa (3rd World, etc) you're genetically inferior??? Makes No sense. I DO believe in cultural evolution and it can be seen on a GLOBAL scale now with the internet. Unfortunately, things like superstitious religious beliefs and dictatorships stop some countries from evolving.
Makell 10 months ago
Simple thing. Some guy one time thinks its a good idea to keep a pig as a pet and then eats it on a rainy day. This is then passed down as a social meme rather than a gene. Just because you didnt yet have that guy in your population doesnt mean ur shit, just unlucky.
tanekki 10 months ago
I agree. If I may be blunt, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If a culture stays the same, it's because it has no need to change or adapt because they've already adapted to their surroundings.
Nagneto 10 months ago
Tooltime
ooh yah and thank you for finally confronting the inequality of Capitalism and its Feudalistic primitive regressive nature, its incompatibility with an otherwise progressive, technologically advanced, wealthy democratic civilization we're supposed to be ... when we are not democratic or advanced till we replace Free Market Capitalism with a real scientific 21st century evolved Egalitarian-Economic Equality-Technology-driven economic structure and society.
please elaborate on that ; )
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago
Tooltime
it's implied in what you said but i'll illustrate anyway:
nomads who innovated agriculture, earlier than others, were happenstance fortunate to not have to migrate far, to arrive at fertile land with nutrient mineral rich soil, nearby water with sustainable climate, to afford the luxury to stop wandering and learn irrigation, nurturing crops, breeding animals, astronomy-seasonal crop rotation, with food in the meantime so they dont starve, freeze or die in desert heat, as they learned.
VampiressOnDaProwlq 10 months ago 2
Peter, thanks for making this video, I am very sorry for the confusion.
Yes, I agree, culture is NOT genetic, but it's Lamarckian.
And I wasn't equating civilization and technology with intelligence and superiority.
I DEFINITELY wasn't saying that a population being superior (whatever that means) makes them morally justified to do anything to another population. Yes I agree there's much more equity & equality in hunter societies, but with a price.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully "Yes, I agree, culture is NOT genetic, but it's Lamarckian."
If you don't mind, I love to see some elaboration on that. I think I might see what you're saying, but I don't want to make assumptions.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Not a problem. Culture is not genetic, as in, your language, experience is not passed on to your child via genes, and so your child is not born to know anything which you have acquired in a lifetime (in biology, this is known as the false and discredited hypothesis of Lamarckism). But culture, in fact IS Lamarckian, in that your child CAN and DOES learn your language, experience, accumulated knowledge, all of which you acquired within a lifetime (and not from your genes).
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully Ah. That is what I thought you meant. I agree.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 thanks for the first comment in this video that isn't "hey, why are you so stupid and bigoted, everybody here says you're wrong"
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I disagree with you. There is genetic evidence that facilitates social behavior.. There is also genetic evidence/markers that favor monogamy and relationships. And not to mention the genes that make it possible for the growth and developments of the human brain that makes us capable of learning. So, when you add up sociality+relationships+learning it is not surprising that society and culture developed. I'm saying it's purely genetic but genes have an influence.
cararacs 10 months ago
I think the young man you are responding too, has never heard the term 'geographic determinism'.
The places, where agriculture arose first, were places that it was the easiest to attain. This mostly means river valleys with few predators.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 some people commented on my video saying that "determinism" should never be used outside of genetics.
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@spiritualbully I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like giving genetics too much weight? Is this a nature vs nurture thing? I sort thought we'd moved on from that one. Nature and nurture in varying amounts.
I have a hard time discounting the ability of the environment to determine various aspects of cultural development.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
While I can sympathize that environment is a huge reason for the Eurasian technological leaps over comparable American or Australasian societies in that the former societies benefited from commerce and cultural exchange more so than the others, it is foolish to believe that evolution on isolated, quasi-incestuous groups only affected skin color, facial structure, and a handful of other physical traits.
doucher337 10 months ago
And honestly, the only reason hunter-gatherer or primitive agricultural societies are more "equal" is that there is so much less wealth in the first place there's only a small margin for inequality. The inequality of societies under corporatist states is artificial to a large degree. That which is not artificial is perfectly sensible and due to very real economic reasons and not some "unfairness" beyond the basic nature of reality.
doucher337 10 months ago
@doucher337 "it is foolish to believe that evolution on isolated, quasi-incestuous groups only affected skin color....."
What sorts of traits do you suggest have been affected? I ask because I'm curious to consider this line of thought.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1
Average intelligence for one thing, and probably some behavorial dispositions. Genetic diseases are tailored specifically toward certain ethnicities, so I don't think it's that far-fetched. Environment and "chance" definitely play a huge role in determining which populations have highest average intelligence (in terms of genetic potential). I'm not entirely clear on all the reasons some Eurasian populations came out on top.
doucher337 10 months ago
@doucher337 Hmm..
I wonder. Is the average intelligence really so high in technologically advanced societies? I think that most people score within 5 points of 100 everywhere. Average people can't duplicate the tech they rely on. It seems like there is really just a few exceptional people upon whose shoulders the rest of us stand.
Also, I don't think that diseases are linked to Ethnicities, but rather population. Skin color isn't genetically linked to sickle-cell for instance.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 "I wonder. Is the average intelligence really so high in technologically advanced societies? I think that most people score within 5 points of 100 everywhere."
Not in any sense that matters. The thing is, IQ is a normalized measure. Scoring and test content is continually adapted so that the average person in a given test context scores 100. If you use the same test in different regions, however, you'll find huge regional differences.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 That doesn't mean that the causes of the differences are genetic. All kinds of things, including education, nutrition, culture etc could conceivably contribute here. However, this should not let one lose sight of the fact that there are vast demonstrable differences in mental capacities in areas critical to modern civilization. This is a problem for certain regions regardless of what the causes are. If the causes are genetic - that is quite simply a disaster for the regions.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Although I don't want to stand behind the specific results here, a quick google, just to give you an idea of the demonstrable from an easily accessible source, try to google "iq and the wealth of nations". But obviously you can produce different numbers with different tests and people can always argue that test X did not actually measure something that matters. Personally I find that highly unconvincing though, given the predictive power of IQ tests.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@Gnomefro I'm gonna mull that over for a few weeks.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@Gnomefro is the fact that IQ and wealth of nations hasn't been republished an indication that nobody takes it seriously?
spiritualbully 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1
When I said ethnicities, I was referring to distinct isolated, quasi-incestuous populations, i.e. Arabic, Berber, Celtic, Germanic, et cetera. I'm not saying that average intelligence is necessarily vastly higher, but that it is statistically greater. Also, I think that many Eurasian populations have greater numbers of intellectual outliers (especially among males) - hence more geniuses can drive much greater and quicker progression than elsewhere.
doucher337 10 months ago
Much of the problem lies beyond the genomes of these people, and a lot of the genetic discrepancies will fade with time as populations blend more and more together, so I don't see this being a problem for more than the next half century at most. Foreign investment both in terms of capital and capitalists in currently undeveloped areas is almost certainly inevitable as states skew economies in developed countries. We'll see how much of the gap is truly innate and how much is due to environment.
doucher337 10 months ago
@doucher337 I'm not sure we disagree in a substantial way.
I tend to think that geography allowed for the development of agriculture and safety from predators in certain regions. This led to development of more complicated social selection pressures and increased population density. This allowed for the greater development of critical thinking and cultural evolution.
I think much of your analysis is pretty good, and we will see illumination on the issue in the next half century.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@doucher337 I would dissuade you from one point. "(especially among males)" I think we are robbed of any chance to meaningfully evaluate the intellectual prowess of women in male dominated cultures, as they were institutionally barred from contributing. Some woman could have possessed the intellect to right "The Principia" 100 years before Newton, but would not have any recourse to do so; thus, we would never know.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1
As a statistical matter of fact, female intelligence is more scattered around the average than males. While many women are very intelligent, and I would not claim diminish that in any way, there are more male geniuses than female. Other facts bar women from holding as much sway in technical intellectual fields as men (especially for married women, e.g. child-rearing).
doucher337 10 months ago
@doucher337 Some good facts. Are you saying that female testing scores show more grouping than male scores? I would accept that. It's verifiable.
Still, if that is what you are saying, could this not be a product of social selection pressures? Western history is filed with the rejection of intelligent women. Is it not possible that the intellectual outliers were bred out? Would this not suggest that there is no natural link between gender and genius, but only an artificial one?
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 I've thought of this before and I realized that greater male variation can be explained by sexual selection. Supposing that females are not monogamous and choose only the best males, parents who produce more varied male offspring will on average produce more children than those who produce reliably mediocre males. A female's reproductive capacity is relatively fixed, so it makes more sense to make them reliably mediocre rather than haphazardly excellent.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 This is not an excuse for rejecting female intelligence. I think it is disgusting and frustrating.
I just thought of another thing. Supposing that human culture has been male dominated on evolutionary time scales (there is good evidence for this), one might think that men who were action oriented were more successful, and women who could influence social events covertly were more successful. This would give a biological explanation for gender differences in math and langauge
AllOtherNamesTaken2 10 months ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 Yeah. I think your on to something there. I'd love to see some research in that area. It can be hard to keep people from getting upset though. Notice how you felt the need to clarify your respect for female intelligence. I totally understand that, but it's indicative of the difficulty in researching these things.
t3tsuyaguy1 10 months ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2
Or you could review some papers that investigated these variables in societies with a high level of equality and a low level of equality. Turns out there are strong indicators that female performance in some cultures on these fields might be inflicted through variables such as self-esteem and support.
And have nothing to do with innate ability.
There are excellent cultural explanations available, well supported by evidence.
PS. Dont frgt outcome variable mst b genedrift
Nerusai 10 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 excellent point sir
curiouscrutiny 6 months ago
@curiouscrutiny Well thank you. :)
t3tsuyaguy1 6 months ago
There are people who arent even exposed to the concept of ownership, personally I believe that they are the winners in life, while the rest of us being enslaved by this huge and complex superorganism called the society are spiritually inferior (maybe our genetics is what makes us born into such a slavery of the mind? ^_^).
WiseWeeabo 10 months ago
I read somewhere that human intelligence didn't change much in last 10.000 years, only knowledge has grown.
Threemicsrecords 10 months ago
@Threemicsrecords Yeah, that's true. Actually, after humans adapted agriculture our brain sizes and statures decreased due to the poor nutrition of agricultural foods. It has take us up until now to catch up to the brain size of our ancestors. If brain size decreased after agriculture, I don't think it would be implausible to suggest we actually got dumber after adopting agriculture.
phaedrus6891 10 months ago
I can agree with this. Whatever they lack, they make up for in other ways. It's kind of like comparing bats living in different parts of the world. It doesn't matter how the bats feed or what structures they use, all that matters is that they survive.
MrStillmans 10 months ago
This is interesting. We were talking about this exact subject in my introductory Anthropology class today. A few seconds after I realized that, you say "If you've ever taken an introduction to Anthropology class...". Cool :)
DSB33 10 months ago
Quick point: Unless you want to splurge a few million dollars, a genetic test only compares genetic markers, not sequencing and comparing entire genomes.
Cultural evolution is largely influenced by genetic evolution (look into the FOXP2 gene/protein, in all likelihood its appearance is responsible for our species ability with complex language (written or spoken).
If one group of isolated humans lost that and therefore couldn't develop written language, I would say they are probably "inferior".
Wolfau5 10 months ago
It is entirely possible that European societies desire to become sedentary, develop agriculture etc was influenced by genetics.
Just because people have decided to mistreat supposedly inferior races/cultures doesn't affirm the statement that all cultures or genetic groups are equal.
3:37 erm... food security, regularity and easier collection (ie hunting can take hours and you can still come back empty handed), able to prepare for winter/famine and pop growth. I would've thought that obvious.
Wolfau5 10 months ago
I would consider a measure of "fitness" to be a nations resilience to environmental changes. We have better food security, we have housing that better protects us from the elements, we have medicines and hygeine practices that better protect us from disease.
Then you have things like "knowledge", how much we know about ourselves, history, environment etc. Martial prowess (we could effortlessly wipe out any and all tribal societies, they could not), population size and geographical diversity...
Wolfau5 10 months ago
...