Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–176 of 176 posts

Re: Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

#171

Post by me-vs-cat »

UltraSane wrote: post #161
me-vs-cat wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Lactose Tolerance: The ability to digest lactose as adults evolved in populations with a history of dairy farming, such as those in Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. 2. Disease Resistance: Genetic adaptations to diseases like malaria (e.g., sickle cell trait) have become more common in certain regions. 3. Skin Pigmentation: Variations in skin color have continued to adapt to UV exposure in different re…

And none of that is at all relevant to how lead affects the human brain and so is completely useless. You should have asked it "Would lead lower IQ in humans 2000 years ago the same way it does today?" This is what DeepSeekv3 says: Yes, lead exposure would have likely had similar detrimental effects on human cognition and IQ 2000 years ago as it does today. Lead is a neurotoxin that interferes with the development an…

No more useless than blind blanket assumptions, which was the point.

> Yes, lead exposure would have likely had similar detrimental effects on human cognition and IQ 2000 years ago as it does today. ...these effects would have been the same in the past...

I challenge you to consider that details matter, and one of those details is that the recent past through today has seen significantly more exposure to airborne lead than existed 2,000 years ago.

Re: Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

#172

Post by nyscof4 »

deadlast2 wrote: post #120

Would love to see a similar study on fluoride in modern civilizations.

Modern day studies show little or no benefit from fluoridation:

Cochrane Review https://cochrane.org/news/water-fluoridation-less-effective-...

LOTUS Study https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/lotus/#results CATFISH Study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36469652/

When under oath CDC could not provide any evidence that fluoride is safe for the brain https://fluoridealert.org/content/cdc-oral-health-director-w...

CDC agreed with the 2006 National Research Council findings that fluorides “interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.” CDC KNEW fluoride affected the brain back in 2006, yet did nothing with this information! https://youtu.be/0A34FK2lTDs

Re: Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

#173

Post by 52-6F-62 »

svrtknst wrote: post #135
52-6F-62 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't roman inventions…

Roman-built roads and the spread of Latin were tremendously important. Noone said they were invented by them.

Yes they did… they edited their comment after I responded and could no longer edit mine.

You just looking for an argument? Its important people know writing and roads weren’t invented by the romans. They are given way too much credit by Americans with imperial ambitions.

Re: Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

#174

Post by gazchop »

Anotheroneagain wrote: post #163
gazchop wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it's really easy to extrapolate stuff. But perhaps they shouldn't. A lot of papers I've seen recently have wild romantic extrapolations based on cherry picked correlations. Some of the social sciences are terrible at this. A former partner was a researcher in one of what I now consider to be less respectable fields and she would come up with a feely conclusion and fit the data to it and publish it. Wanted me to co…

That could explain how the lead poisoning crowd took over. No, there won't be any retractions, you will be "educated" that you are stupid, "anti science", and too stupid to understand the newly discovered "fact".

Yeah if you don't toe the line of the more senior people in the speciality, next thing you know you're outcast from your institution and no one will talk to you.

This is why I do mathematics. Most of it is impossible to argue against once there's a solid proof :)

(also everyone is really nice in the field!)

Re: Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

#175

Post by jjk166 »

coderwolf wrote: post #167
jjk166 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IQ measures reasoning capability, not speed of mental calculations.

I think you're right. (Did some ChatGPTing, and found this one holds). But still, I don't believe IQ alone can improve your reasoning capability, could it? Like with proper education, and knowledge, a person with average IQ would more likely be able to see the correct patterns, and connections between ideas, than a high IQ person without the required education would. It's like - having the proper education, trumps th…

IQ doesn't improve anything, it is a measurement. You don't have good reasoning capability because you have a high IQ, you have a high IQ because you have good reasoning capability. It's also not something fixed. Your IQ will naturally vary over time due to both controllable and environmental factors, including some aspects of education.

Education is no substitute for IQ any more than IQ could be substituted for education. A high IQ individual has the potential to better utilize an education, all else being equal. Whether education or reasoning ability is more critical is very situational. In a tour guide, you definitely would prefer someone knowledgeable, in a detective you really want someone clever. At least for the moment the preferred workload distribution is generally for computers to help us with information retrieval and low level analysis which education trains us for while a human performs high level reasoning tasks which are represented by IQ.

Re: Roman Empire's use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

#176

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call it nothing. Current regulation requires water supply at the tap to measure 2-3 µg/L is significant.

You are comparing level in the blood and water.

I am referencing water regulations, I never said anything about blood.
Post reply on HN