## Estimating neanderthal and EMH visuospatial IQ

First, let’s presume I’m correct and the correlation between visuospatial IQ and brain size is approximately linear in humans, and that late neanderthals and early modern humans were similar enough to modern humans to be comparable. White people have an average brain size of 1350 cc and a standard deviation of approximately 130 cc, and a visuospatial IQ of 100 by definition. Neanderthals and EMH had an average brain size of 1600 cc. This is +1.9 SD above the modern human mean, predicting a nonverbal IQ of 128.5.

If we correct for encephalization by multiplying by the ratio of neanderthal EQ to modern human EQ (4.8/5.4 = 0.889), then 1600 cc times 0.889 is 1422 cc. This is +0.55 SD above the white mean, predicting an average visuospatial IQ of 108.3.

The same analysis for Amud 1 (1740 cc) yields an expected nonverbal IQ of +3 SD. If I understand correctly, you have to multiply that by the strength of the correlation when estimating individual IQs. This would be a conservative estimate because Amud was an ectomorphic neanderthal.

In addition, Pumpkin Person reports (reluctantly?):

Based on the fact that they left behind no drawings, I now estimate Neanderthals, like Homo erectus, had an artistic IQ of about 26. However in the documentary Apocalypse Neanderthal, a scientist mentions that it took him a year and a half to learn to make the stone tools Neanderthals made all the time. Since scientists probably average about 125 IQ, that might suggest Neanderthals had a spatial IQ as high as 125!

If something like the Levallois technique is going to survive tens of thousands of years by cultural exchange, the average individual in the culture has to be able to learn it.

Let me know if I’m fucking anything up here.

## About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

### 6 Responses to Estimating neanderthal and EMH visuospatial IQ

1. Koanic says:

Too autistic to draw.

• Aeoli Pera says:

Devil’s advocacy counterargument: selection bias. When drawing for entertainment was a real possibility, they’d moved out of the caves.

2. Boneflour says:

There’s got to be a way to clickbait this shit.

“The Hattori Hanzo of prehistoric times: Levallois technique of ancient Neanderthal weaponsmith creates legendary blades”
“Did Neanderthals give us our high IQ?”
“Deconstructing ‘Neanderthal Privilege'”
“Do engineers have Neanderthal DNA?”
“Ice Age Training: The Neanderthal secret to 6 pack abs”
“10 signs your boyfriend is a Neanderthal (and why that’s a good thing)”
“Is your fitness instructor a Neanderthal? Use this trick to find out!” (hint: it’s Drano)
“The prehistoric Spartans you’ve never heard of before”

Not crazy enough. ONIONIZE ME CAPTAIN

“Did Neanderthals invent the Zodiac?”
“Were Neanderthal cave paintings a hidden prophecy?”
“Did Neanderthals predict the next Ice Age?”
“Were the Neanderthals at war with an alien race?”
“Is Donald Trump a Neanderthal?”

“Aspergers man returns winning lotto ticket, is taken to Area 51 for observation.” (there’s something not right about this kid. He returned a winning lotto ticket? I mean that’s the right thing to do, but…)

• bicebicebice says:

10/10 would click

3. Son of Distant Trebizond says:

modern dysgenics make your estimates even more conservative, obviously…

4. RaceRealist says:

His estimates make no sense. They’re extremely subjective. Neuron count and brain weight predict cognitive ability better in non-human primates.

However, the notion that higher encephalization correlates with improved cognitive abilities has recently been disputed in favor of absolute numbers of cortical neurons and connections (Roth and Dicke, 2005), or simply absolute brain size (Deaner et al., 2007). If encephalization were the main determinant of cognitive abilities, small-brained animals with very large encephalization quotients, such as capuchin monkeys, should be more cognitively able than large-brained but less encephalized animals, such as the gorilla (Marino, 1998). However, the former animals with a smaller brain are outranked by the latter in cognitive performance (Deaner et al., 2007).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207181/

Neanderthals had a similar neuron count to us, 85 billion, suggesting they had the potential for an IQ around modern humans.

https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/01/14481/

I believe the differences is cultural transference and acquisition. If you really think about it, it does make sense.