I am glad I found your Substack, as these topics are of some general interest to me, but I don't have the time or deep enough interest to explore them as deeply as you have, so discovering your summary and midlevel explanations and explorations is a great find.
I gather you are trying to expand this area of study as a formal subset of the social sciences? How is that aspect of things coming? Is there a formal professional society already or one that you want to establish? Possibly as an offshoot of an existing organization or discipline? I image that can be tricky, just because of "people" and "rice bowls", plus the topic has tendrils into so many other specialized areas.
I am not convinced that IQ is the main story. The theory still suffers from the "what caused the cause" problem that I mention in the post.
In other words, what caused variations in national IQ, which clearly exists despite protests to the contrary? There is no evidence that Hunter Gatherer tribes in the distant past had different levels of intelligence, so something must have caused the difference between then and now.
I believe that thinking through the problem leads one right back to variations in geography, which led to variations in food production, which led to variations in society types, which led to variations in levels of economic development.
>taxing requires stored (legible) food. This is why states only evolve in places where there are seasonal crops, which thereby generate stored food. Regions with no seasonal crops, so no stored food, do not generate states,
>seasonal crops -> stored food -> protection problem, and taxable surplus -> kingdoms, states
(Wouldn't be surprised if you mentioned this stuff later on in the series)
I'd guess presence of the state likely leads to higher IQ. More stable, less violent environment = natural selection can favor people that are smarter, rather than simply the toughest/most violent
>I am not convinced that IQ is the main story.
Ofc it's not the whole story, but it sure as hell is the biggest proximal causal factor. The nation GDP map is basically the nation IQ map with a few adjustments (Saudi Arabia's GDP punching above their avg IQ due to oil reserves, etc.)
"... presence of the state likely leads to higher IQ."
Or might it be the other way around? I wonder if the time scale of a few thousand years for settlements and states to be established is enough to enhance IQ all that much. I agree that once states are established, that the higher IQ folks would have opportunities not available in simpler hunter-gather situations and thus enhance their survival fitness, etc.
I can see the smarter folks saying something along the lines of "you know, now that we have a harvest surplus, we need to store and set some of that aside for the lean years we can project will occur in the future". From there a whole set of issues and questions of methods, modes, controls, etc. then become apparent and in play.
Along with the "political paradox" twitter comment you provided. Something Madison mentioned in The Federalist papers, although I doubt it was original with him, in so many words
.
But the "normal" distribution of intelligence suggests a very much longer development timeframe, possibly actually enhanced via inter-group warfare more than any other core factor?
It took me a minute to recognize that "Ofc" meant "of course". So many new abbreviations via the internet. I have seen examples where someone took a text and removed all or almost all of the vowels and you could still make out what was being said. A fun intelligence feature?
I note the two book summaries you provide below, so I hope to read those, perhaps this weekend?
But I perceive you do agree there is some coupling to evolved mental capabilities, possibly including non-cognitive features (perseverance, aggression, curiosity, love, lust, spatial vision, etc.?). But since paleolithic and neolithic peoples could still migrate across geographies, they might bring those "mental resources" with them, even if the old or new geographic environments enabled improving their mental abilities in some way (food, weather, tools). But we need to remember that such migrations could occur on a very short time scale compared to what evolution might contribute.
I am glad I found your Substack, as these topics are of some general interest to me, but I don't have the time or deep enough interest to explore them as deeply as you have, so discovering your summary and midlevel explanations and explorations is a great find.
I gather you are trying to expand this area of study as a formal subset of the social sciences? How is that aspect of things coming? Is there a formal professional society already or one that you want to establish? Possibly as an offshoot of an existing organization or discipline? I image that can be tricky, just because of "people" and "rice bowls", plus the topic has tendrils into so many other specialized areas.
I am not convinced that IQ is the main story. The theory still suffers from the "what caused the cause" problem that I mention in the post.
In other words, what caused variations in national IQ, which clearly exists despite protests to the contrary? There is no evidence that Hunter Gatherer tribes in the distant past had different levels of intelligence, so something must have caused the difference between then and now.
I believe that thinking through the problem leads one right back to variations in geography, which led to variations in food production, which led to variations in society types, which led to variations in levels of economic development.
You don't have to agree, but that is my take.
brief notes on a longer article:
https://twitter.com/nightfire0/status/1755772697278390404
>taxing requires stored (legible) food. This is why states only evolve in places where there are seasonal crops, which thereby generate stored food. Regions with no seasonal crops, so no stored food, do not generate states,
>seasonal crops -> stored food -> protection problem, and taxable surplus -> kingdoms, states
(Wouldn't be surprised if you mentioned this stuff later on in the series)
I'd guess presence of the state likely leads to higher IQ. More stable, less violent environment = natural selection can favor people that are smarter, rather than simply the toughest/most violent
>I am not convinced that IQ is the main story.
Ofc it's not the whole story, but it sure as hell is the biggest proximal causal factor. The nation GDP map is basically the nation IQ map with a few adjustments (Saudi Arabia's GDP punching above their avg IQ due to oil reserves, etc.)
Obviously it's more pc to not notice that though
"... presence of the state likely leads to higher IQ."
Or might it be the other way around? I wonder if the time scale of a few thousand years for settlements and states to be established is enough to enhance IQ all that much. I agree that once states are established, that the higher IQ folks would have opportunities not available in simpler hunter-gather situations and thus enhance their survival fitness, etc.
I can see the smarter folks saying something along the lines of "you know, now that we have a harvest surplus, we need to store and set some of that aside for the lean years we can project will occur in the future". From there a whole set of issues and questions of methods, modes, controls, etc. then become apparent and in play.
Along with the "political paradox" twitter comment you provided. Something Madison mentioned in The Federalist papers, although I doubt it was original with him, in so many words
.
But the "normal" distribution of intelligence suggests a very much longer development timeframe, possibly actually enhanced via inter-group warfare more than any other core factor?
It took me a minute to recognize that "Ofc" meant "of course". So many new abbreviations via the internet. I have seen examples where someone took a text and removed all or almost all of the vowels and you could still make out what was being said. A fun intelligence feature?
I note the two book summaries you provide below, so I hope to read those, perhaps this weekend?
But I perceive you do agree there is some coupling to evolved mental capabilities, possibly including non-cognitive features (perseverance, aggression, curiosity, love, lust, spatial vision, etc.?). But since paleolithic and neolithic peoples could still migrate across geographies, they might bring those "mental resources" with them, even if the old or new geographic environments enabled improving their mental abilities in some way (food, weather, tools). But we need to remember that such migrations could occur on a very short time scale compared to what evolution might contribute.
Thanks for the comment. For those who are not familiar with the national IQ argument, you can read a summary on my library of digital book summaries:
https://techratchet.com/2020/12/07/book-summary-hive-mind-by-garett-jones/
https://techratchet.com/2021/04/14/book-summary-understanding-human-history-by-michael-hart/