This all just says that you believe that the random noise is either equal across regions, which is not true, or that it is so close to 100% of all fertility-inhibiting outcomes that there's no room for decision-making to make any difference.
-
-
Replying to @arnolfson @RCownie and
Which is an entirely faith-based theory; humans in the environments in the past depended on an exact level of intelligence that was beneficial equally across all environments. If anyone could benefit noticeably from planning anywhere at any time in history your theory is wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arnolfson @CovfefeAnon and
So do you think humans in 1700 had much better genetics for cognitive capabilities than, say, when pyramids were built ?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @CovfefeAnon and
I think the inhabitants of the British isles had better genetics for cognitive capabilities in 1700 than they did in 1200. Comparing across region, time and migration gets much trickier.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arnolfson @CovfefeAnon and
Not something we can expect to determine accurately. I don't see it, though it's much easier for us to appreciate the 16th/17th century vernacular than Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, or Latin, along with the High Medieval worldview.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @arnolfson and
Easier to grok this though, mostly from 1220-1258https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Cathedral#/media/File:SalisburyCathedral-wyrdlight-EastExt.jpg …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @CovfefeAnon and
I think your problem is that you think that something like the cognitive ability of a population should be judged by a few buildings and texts. Which is idiotic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arnolfson @CovfefeAnon and
Not sure what else you can do for a historical population, in the absence of a time machine. And my default assumption is "probably about the same". Obviously you have a different viewpoint.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @arnolfson and
Jumping back in on this because it's illustrative for the audience - your "default assumption" is "probably about the same" Since it's just a default assumption* - WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU HAVE TO SEE TO DISPROVE THAT ASSUMPTION? * It's actually insane to have that assumption
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @arnolfson and
And what evidence would you need to believe that the people of classical Athens were as smart as those of England in 1700 ? You're all believers in IQ, while I think cognitive capabilities are multi-dimensional and hard to measure. Motes and beams here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yep, still no answer
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @arnolfson and
If I saw evidence of a population with sophisticated technologies losing that expertise, and adopting simpler but less effective technologies, then I'd look closely at what happened and why.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCownie @CovfefeAnon and
Or if I saw a population suddenly producing a lot of innovation or expanding its territory, then again, that's something to look at closely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.