The first thing I thought of is that if lack of diseases is what has been causing the rise in intelligence, then there's likely to be a ceiling that average intelligence will hit as countries become healthier, rather than some mysterious force continually increasing average intelligence forever. That makes me a little sad.
Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
21–30 of 35 posts
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#22It's politically illegal to say that on average whites are smarter than blacks so instead they have this little gem:
"....distance from humanity’s African homeland (novel environments could encourage greater intelligence)...."
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#23It's politically illegal to say that on average whites are smarter than blacks so instead they have this little gem: "....distance from humanity’s African homeland (novel environments could encourage greater intelligence)...."
There are plenty of Blacks outside Africa and I hear that in South Africa there are loads of whites.
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#24It's politically illegal to say that on average whites are smarter than blacks so instead they have this little gem: "....distance from humanity’s African homeland (novel environments could encourage greater intelligence)...."
There are plenty of Blacks outside Africa and I hear that in South Africa there are loads of whites.
If you look at the data you'll notice it's very noisy. And I bet the noise is entirely (or mostly) made up of race.
Note that one of the things they did not control for was race.
It's racist to say this, I know, and more importantly it's not nice. But if you are going to make a study, you have to deal with reality.
Control for race, and then check the correlation with parasites.
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been successful in every country that has tried it. Granted, the US has a bad habit of poorly implemented government programs so who knows, we may be the first exception. PS: Medical outcomes are far more dependent on the average level of care than the peek level of care. EX: There is a lot of evidence that the average doctor is significantly more effective than a "high preforming" doctor that is sleep deprived.
> It's been successful in every country that has tried it. Doesn't that depend on the starting point? For example, NHS started during the post WWII depression in the UK. The US isn't starting from there. I'm trying to track down the stats, but I've heard that the US lifespan is world-longest if you adjust for accidents and homicide, two things that aren't affected by healthcare. > Granted, the US has a bad habit of p…
Much of that gap is, DoD spending and interest on debt. However, per person Canada spends about the same money on universal heath care as we do to cover 50% of heath care spending. Much of that relates to malpractice insurance, the overhead from private insurance/medical billing, and higher doctor salaries. But, we also pay a lot more for the same medications/medical devices etc.
So, looking at our "overhead" it's easy to see why we get little benefit from the money spent.
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of Blacks outside Africa and I hear that in South Africa there are loads of whites.
If you look at the data you'll notice it's very noisy. And I bet the noise is entirely (or mostly) made up of race. Note that one of the things they did not control for was race. It's racist to say this, I know, and more importantly it's not nice. But if you are going to make a study, you have to deal with reality. Control for race, and then check the correlation with parasites.
How do you control for race? My grandmother is Mexican. My grandfather is German. What "race" is my mom? What about me?
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's been successful in every country that has tried it. Doesn't that depend on the starting point? For example, NHS started during the post WWII depression in the UK. The US isn't starting from there. I'm trying to track down the stats, but I've heard that the US lifespan is world-longest if you adjust for accidents and homicide, two things that aren't affected by healthcare. > Granted, the US has a bad habit of p…
> I've heard that the US lifespan is world-longest if you adjust for accidents and homicide, two things that aren't affected by healthcare. Other measures of health care quality, such as infant mortality, are worse in the US than in many other countries. So I doubt it.
Other measures of health care quality, such as infant mortality, are worse in the US...
Nope. The US spends far more on trying to save the lives of premature and sickly newborns than any other country. Many these don;t make it after being born and show up in the stats as "high infant mortality". This approach also drives up health care costs.
One can argue (having met two crack babies that survived, I personally would be tempted to in many cases) that US hospitals shouldn't do this, but nevertheless they do do it. And it costs money and skews statistics.
I also have personally experienced health care in other countries (Greece, Mexico, China -- where my wife was a doctor). No thanks.
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at the data you'll notice it's very noisy. And I bet the noise is entirely (or mostly) made up of race. Note that one of the things they did not control for was race. It's racist to say this, I know, and more importantly it's not nice. But if you are going to make a study, you have to deal with reality. Control for race, and then check the correlation with parasites.
How do you control for race? My grandmother is Mexican. My grandfather is German. What "race" is my mom? What about me?
You do the best you can. Perfection is not required.
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of Blacks outside Africa and I hear that in South Africa there are loads of whites.
If you look at the data you'll notice it's very noisy. And I bet the noise is entirely (or mostly) made up of race. Note that one of the things they did not control for was race. It's racist to say this, I know, and more importantly it's not nice. But if you are going to make a study, you have to deal with reality. Control for race, and then check the correlation with parasites.
If you control for race you are implying that there are racial differences. That, may or may not be true, most likely it is not true. Social sciences are adverse to rigorously investigate the issue because I think we have learned from the last century some fundamental things, the main one being that labelling an entire race as inferior is extremely dangerous.
Besides, I am sure all races are infected by diseases and so too I am sure that the difference the further you go from Africa is not because of ones race but because societies are richer the further you go and thus have better sanitation. Moreover, I think that the unites states contains more black individuals than Europe, thus, if race had any effect, you would expect Europe to be more intelligent.
Not that we in Europe aren't mind you :P
Re: Parasites may explain regional differences in intelligence
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been successful in every country that has tried it. Granted, the US has a bad habit of poorly implemented government programs so who knows, we may be the first exception. PS: Medical outcomes are far more dependent on the average level of care than the peek level of care. EX: There is a lot of evidence that the average doctor is significantly more effective than a "high preforming" doctor that is sleep deprived.
> It's been successful in every country that has tried it. Doesn't that depend on the starting point? For example, NHS started during the post WWII depression in the UK. The US isn't starting from there. I'm trying to track down the stats, but I've heard that the US lifespan is world-longest if you adjust for accidents and homicide, two things that aren't affected by healthcare. > Granted, the US has a bad habit of p…
> "...if you adjust for accidents and homicide, two things that aren't affected by healthcare."
Healthcare is quite involved in dealing with the effects of accidents on humans. So I would think that death rate from accidents, broadly speaking, is not independent from level of healthcare. Or is that a technical term that already distinguishes between those that survive the accident long enough to possibly receive treatment and those that don't?