Sorry for the delay, I’ve been wrestling with some normalfag shit and some weird-as-fuck shit that I haven’t figured out how to explain yet.
This post combines a comment I left at CH and another from the altrugenics forum.
Given the recent news of a discovery suggesting that Neanderthals may have been more advanced than previously thought, it’s time to revisit the possibility that Neanderthals were out-competed by proto-Sapien Cro-Magnons because the former were missing some valuable, survival trait other than intellectual horsepower.
We humans may have evolved to have tighter Game.
Did Humans Evolve To Have Tighter Game?
Modern neanderthal-influenced phenotypes can learn Game better because they’re smarter and more adaptive, but they have to be taught. Homo sapiens sapiens are what we’d call “naturals” at irrational confidence; it is literally their only skill in life. In an atomized world with no long-term relationships between friends or family, it is the only skill that matters.
What anthropologists call “cro magnon” is the mixture of the original brutish cro magnon stock with neanderthals, which produced a hyperverbal race of geniuses who innovated like crazy but was strongly dysgenic due to the reasons given in the OP. Neanderthal genes have been dwindling ever since in favor of African genes, and with them the average cranial sizes have been shrinking.
Brain size doesn’t predict verbal intelligence. It indicates that a person has a high capacity for sensory stimulation- i.e. a capability to absorb incoming sense data. Thus, it predicts purely visual intelligence, like the “draw a man” subtest. You need both visual and verbal in order to produce visuospatial ability.
Archaic intelligence is difficult to estimate, but I’ve personally constructed the following heuristic:
Large brain: perceptual (the most complex of which is visual)
Large group size: verbal
Brain size ~ nonverbal intelligence
Group size ~ verbal intelligence
Combined intelligence ~ nonverbal intelligence * verbal intelligence
So we have:
Cro magnon/neanderthal mix (largest hominid brain, large group size) ~ high verbal * high nonverbal = Race of geniuses
Early cro magnon or modern homo sapiens sapiens (small brain, large group size) ~ high verbal * low nonverbal = Race of confidence men
Early neanderthal (huge brains, small group sizes) ~ low verbal * high nonverbal = Race of autistic savants
(Please note that I typically use “intelligence” and “IQ” interchangeably. This is the colloquial usage. In this post I use intelligence to mean “adaptive problem solving” and IQ to mean “ability to answer questions on an IQ test”.)
Now, recall that I’ve said the only thing that matters on an IQ test up until the 130 mark is verbal IQ. It would be more precise to say that verbal intelligence factors much more strongly in the normal ranges, within two standard deviations of the modern average. IQ tests are designed to maximize their resolution in this range. In the high ranges it appears that two or three modes of nonverbal intelligence predominate.
So if we’re going to predict average scores on IQ tests, we need to account for these observations. Here’s roughly how I think it’ll shake out:
Small brain, small group size: dumb dumb, would score poorly on all IQ subtests
Large brain, small group size: dumb autistic, disproportionate perceptual ability- produces artistic fascination but no abstract ideation
Small brain, large group size: normalfag, disproportionate verbal- produces a socialite who gets the maximum yield out of the little gray matter they have
Large brain, large group size: Technocrat- produces emergent mental abilities in the high ranges from combination of high-functioning verbal and perceptual faculties.
Average IQ score predictions,
Small brain, small group size: 60
Large brain, small group size: 80 (visual tilt)
Small brain, large group size: 100 (verbal tilt)
Large brain, large group size: 120