I find things like that hard to perfectly square with observations like the Flynn Effect (“the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

▲

Epa095 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why? Draw the line backwards, and in a couple of decades you are down at 0 IQ. That's clearly absurd, you can't draw any conclusions of IQ significantly before 1950 from how the line behaves after 1950.

▲

cluckindan 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And that’s because IQ is a statistical distribution, not an absolute measurement of intelligence.

If everyone suddenly gets twice as smart as before, nobody’s IQ changes.

	▲	anamexis 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		For any given IQ test, the norming sample is taken once. So if everyone gets twice as smart as before, everyone's IQ, as measured by any existing IQ test, would go up.
	▲	jibal 33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This is wrong and confused in every possible way. Look up the Flynn effect ... it refers to an actual change in performance. That the scores on a given IQ test are occasionally renormalized so that the mean is 100 has no bearing on whether "IQ is a statistical distribution", whether intelligence or whatever the heck IQ measures can be measured absolutely, or on the validity and meaning of the previous statements by Epa095, sokoloff, and irdc and why they are or are not true. If everyone suddenly gets twice as smart as before, all of their IQs will shoot up until the scoring of every IQ test is renormalized to a mean of 100.
	▲	readthenotes1 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		True, but irrelevant. Or, false and irrelevant. People's scores on yesteryear's tests rose over the distribution when the test was initially taken.

▲

echelon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Firstly, this is completely orthogonal. But it's also improper reasoning.

If Neanderthal had bigger brains (they did) or had different cognitive abilities, there's a chance they were baseline smarter than homo sapiens at the time.

Being perhaps a little smarter doesn't mean you win the evolutionary game. There are so many factors at play.

▲

card_zero an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Hmm, more smarter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Cranial_capacity

Not the lady Neanderthals:

> average Neanderthal cranial capacity for females was 1300 cm3 and 1600 cm3 for males. [Modern humans, 1473 cm3.]

Nor the dude Neanderthals, since they were using the swollen brainparts for vision and coordination:

> Neanderthals had larger eyes and bodies relative to their height [...] when these areas were adjusted to match anatomically modern human proportions it was found Neanderthals had brains 15-22% smaller than in anatomically-modern humans.

Edit since I don't even agree with the concept: even if the extra capacity was differently distributed such that they had more ... powerful? ... executive functions, what's smartness? More imagination, OK, more self-restraint, more planning. More navel-gazing, more doubt, more ennui.

Or it could be more communication, often proposed as what gave sapiens the edge. Chattering bipeds. It's an association between the brain doing something and the species proliferating, that's what we're calling smart, but doing what? It could just mean our ancestors were compulsively busy. Same thing as smart, perhaps.

▲

dismalaf 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Being perhaps a little smarter doesn't mean you win the evolutionary game. There are so many factors at play.

Considering most human groups have a % of Neanderthal DNA, they didn't exactly lose... Based on the % of Neanderthal vs. Sapien DNA, it seems Neanderthals were simply outnumbered.

▲

hrimfaxi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What does it mean to lose evolutionarily if not be outnumbered?

▲

dismalaf 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are numbers everything? Are sardines more evolved than whales?

Anyhow, the traditional view is that Neanderthals were brutes who were actually out-competed and killed off by Sapiens. The more realistic view considering the evidence is that Neanderthals were much closer to Sapiens, equally or even more sophisticated, but less numerous, and thus their contribution to our DNA is smaller than Sapiens.

But do keep in mind the Neanderthals live on because Europeans and Asians are all part Neanderthal.

▲

tsunamifury 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ants won over humans? Worms?

	▲	hrimfaxi 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		When you are in direct competition? I should have said outcompeted, which in this case I think outnumbered is a fair proxy.