I haven't had a look at the Flynn Effect for a few years [other than maybe a cursory glance]. Things seem to be moving on. However, I don't buy the "it's over" theory.
This fits with the Mq theory of selection for the hot-stuff DNA. Of course those who have already got all the good DNA can't get more of it, so the improvement is at the bottom of the heap, with the lowest being removed in each generation:
<Some studies focusing on the distribution of scores have found the Flynn effect to be primarily a phenomenon in the lower end of the distribution. Teasdale and Owen 1987, for example, found the effect primarily reduced low-end scores, resulting in a pile up of moderately high scores, with no increase in very high scores. Colom et al. 2005 found similar results, and presented data supporting the nutrition hypothesis, which predicts that gains in IQ will predominantly occur at the low end of the distribution where nutritional deprivation is most severe. Two large samples of Spanish children were assessed with a 30-year gap. Comparison of the IQ distributions indicated that 1) the mean IQ had increased by 9.7 points (the Flynn effect), 2) the gains were concentrated in the lower half of the distribution and negligible in the top half, and 3) the gains gradually decreased from low to high IQ.>
Having been involved with the effects of lead in petrol [gasoline] as part of my job with BP Oil in the 1980s, I realized how criminally insane it was to have lead in petrol [not to mention in house paint and all sorts of other applications, solder in food cans, plumbing]. Also there are all sorts of nutritional deficits such as iodine which reduce the development of childrens' brains.
So it's not surprising that as toxins were removed over the 20th century and nutrition improved, intelligence improved. I hasten to add that hssn involves a LOT more than just intelligence. It's a personality issue too = amygdala and other functions - I haven't figured out exactly what, but the cooperation genes obviously matter if cooperation is a key function, which it is, by definition, since the essential characteristic is we are becoming more like nodes in a web than self-sustaining individuals of a hunter-gatherer small-group type.
They say intelligence has peaked in some places. That is likely to be because of social welfare ideas in which women without much brainpower can earn a good living by producing children. Also, I guess that Denmark's Moslem immigrants have got a lower average intelligence than have Danes [though maybe they have been selected on the basis of degrees and other qualifications which would mean they might be higher than the local yokels - I doubt it].
Hmmm, Griffe has a commentator: vdare.com But for some reason I can't get to Griffe's site to get data on IQ of Moslem countries compared with Denmark.
Since hssn are about brain function rather than musculature and aggression and brain function is primarily about intelligence, though memory and other functions are vital too, IQ tests are a reasonable guide to who probably has hssn genes in plentiful supply, though by no means all as there are plenty of insanely criminally horrible people with highish intelligence, though probably not evil genius levels.
I doubt that those who have the hssn DNA will struggle with it. They will be grateful for it because it's good for them.
<This is Buddha’s consciousness, Christ’s, Gandhi’s and the Dalai Lama’s as well; however, some of us are pigheaded. >
Precisely, though it's more chimp-headed than pig-headed. Joking aside, I don't think it's a matter of people "getting it". I think a chimp simply can't get it [with respect to being a hss, let alone an hssn]. Sure, they could do a chimpanzee tea party, but they didn't do the dishes afterwards and the eating style didn't involve sophisticated use of cutlery.
But we don't need to seek out famous "leaders" such as Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama and we don't need their mystical muck. On the contrary, their very "leadership" is contrary to the idea I'm talking about, as their priestly ways implies a need for leadership and soon turns into autocratic priestly dominance hierarchy, with the priests getting the money and dishing it out to those who go along with their rules.
Anyway, Ghandi needed violence as he got killed and if he had defended himself, or somebody had done it for him, he wouldn't have been killed. Same for Jesus - nailed to a cross and effigies hung around the world for thousands of years as a warning to anyone who annoys the state or other leaders, with not just that as a warning, but threats of fire and brimstone in eternity for anyone who fails to toe the line.
I'm not saying "no violence". I'm saying it's got little purpose these days. Of course when some Neanderthal kicks the door down, they need to be dealt with violently because they don't understand anything else.
People like Saddam are not into my "mystical muck". They are into totalitarian force and it works for them. There are plenty of people like that and more born every day. It'll be a long time yet before people are all hssn and we live in peace, light, harmony, happiness, health, prosperity, longevity, fun and love.
Ashkenazi Jews apparently all had 4 "mothers" about 800 years ago. Which would explain why they have such high intelligence if those 4 mothers were super-smart. I can see that all us might have had just a few "mothers" 100,000 years ago. That's a LOT of generations for the filtration process to select out the rest [which were presumably a bit too knuckle-dragging to stay in the game].
I read that link you gave, and it says <# The most important date, in relation to the competing evolutionary theories, is the time when all the sequences coalesce into one -- the 'mitochondrial Eve.'
# From this study, a date of 171,500 years ago was obtained which fits remarkably well with that proposed in the recent African origin hypothesis. >
My [just invented] hypothesis is that Y chromosome "Adam" was MUCH more recent than that. I will right now wildly guess using not even boe analysis, that all males have descended from Adam as recently as 17,000 years ago.
That's because males killed each other in genocidal war, and mated with the females who they kept. I guess a ratio of something like a 10:1 rate would be about right as women who don't die young could have something like 15 children, half of whom are males. Those 8 males nearly all had to die without being represented in the next generation [or the world would have been over-run like rabbits in sheep-farming over-run the place]. So did the females [so they obviously didn't all have 15 children].
The males killed each other off. Maybe half of them died in fighting or from injuries which left them unable to do much in the reproductive stakes and vulnerable to later problems of survival. The few surviving males went on to do the fathering, with a plentiful supply of females [7 for each bloke].
Okay, I'll go with Adam being 31,415 years ago.
Mqurice |
