|Re: HBD -- Farming and Inheritance (937519)|
|Home > OTChat|
Re: HBD -- Farming and Inheritance
No, it's because the smart people in Appalachia leave. Those smart people bring up the average IQ in the areas where they move to.
The phenomenon of brain drain and the notion of pre-existing differences in average IQ between to populations aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Brain drain could serve to exacerbate the pre-existing differences in the average IQ of two regions, as the brighter members of the overall less intelligent group flee the poor prospects of their home region for better lives among the more intelligent folk. Even in that situation, the question become how did those regional differences start in the first place?
In fact, something like that may have occurred with Southern Italian migration: not necessarily to Northern Italy, but to the United States. Italian Americans, who are overwhelmingly of Southern Italian origin, have an average IQ of about 100, significantly smarter than those in the Old Country, and indeed, as a group, Italian-Americans have done well here. It appears that some intense selection was in play for those emigrating to the States. This process was likely also at work within Italy itself and the rest of the Europe, but genetic evidence demonstrate that migration alone couldn't be responsible for the observed differences in the average IQ among modern Italians.
NYC is composed mostly of people from areas that you describe as low IQ, yet it has one of the highest IQs in the nation.
Can this be because the smartest people from all over the place move here rather than something magical in the water?
Cities in general are too small units of the general population to be representative of the overall average IQ. Cities, especially economically vital ones, tend to attract smart people to them. So with cities, it's understood that brain drain and the subsequent founder effect is the source of their higher than average IQ. By contrast, Southern Italy, as well as Southern Spain/Portugal, Northern and Eastern Britain/Ireland, and all of Southeastern Europe are much larger than any city.
In the States, Hawaii, which is a fairly well-off place economically, has a lower than average White IQ. Is that due to brain drain, or to massive amounts of Portuguese immigration?
>>>Again, seems highly intellectually unkosher of you to dismiss the effects of centuries of farm economics.
It seems even more intellectually unkosher of you to prefer going with ridiculous "data" from when the population was a tiny fraction of what it's been in the last 100 years and where historical comparisons would be impossible over the well-known and documented historical, economical, social and demographic phenomenons of the last 6-10-15 decades.
The medieval/pre-modern theory of European evolution is still preliminary, but pretty damned convincing. The conditions and status of the people in Europe isn't as well documented during this time as it is for more recent times, but it's not like we have nothing at all. What we have is fairly good and is in line with the results seen today.
As well, a smaller earlier population would mean that the effects of selection are even more powerful. That's a basic concept of evolution by natural selection.
>>>>The devil is in the details, my friend. Precisely how things sucked and for who makes a world of difference as to who was more successful in leaving descendants to the present day, which is what we're interested in.
The plague, bad sanitation, TB and wars sucked for everyone.
Indeed, but it is these forces that created the selective pressures that raised average IQs to their modern levels.