A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF INTELLIGENCE – AND MAN The history of the evolution

A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF INTELLIGENCE – AND MAN

The history of the evolution of mankind is the incremental acceleration of adaptability due to periodic stresses. While we don’t study it, climactic stresses in Africa alone during the past five million years were challenging.

So it is better to describe individual and group intelligence as the rate of individual and group adaptability, and group strategy, metaphysics(paradigm), mythology, tradition, and *method of argument* as regulating our adaptability to our group ability.

Unfortunately, group strategy can enhance of limit group adaptability, and can advance it (european) or regress it (Islam).

By using the model (paradigm) of adaptability to relate human biological, social, cognitive, and linguistic processes, we create commensurability across domains and produce a universal understanding of human behavior – thus assisting us in demonstrating that the entire human spectrum of tools (biological, social, cognitive, linguistic AND informational) is not only ‘relative’ but absolutely non-neutral.

So I’ll take the opportunity to state once again:

Differences in ability are neotenic and neurological. They may be nothing more than neoteny facilitating differential neurological growth.

We have cannot yet identify genes determining intelligence, and those we find (thousands) appear to have tiny effect.

That differences in cognitive adaptability or the distribution of it (memory vs adaptability vs prediction-innovation vs agency) appear to leave little or no evidence in the fossil record other than minor variation in the volume of the braincase.

We have definite archeological evidence in the record of the evolution of tools and processes.

We have definite biological evidence in the record of differences in gestation rate, maturity rate, depth of maturity, and self-regulation (neoteny) – which is the direction of investigation that would help us understand intelligence.

We have definite biological evidence in isolated populations that the earliest people out of africa have the lowest cognitive rate of adaptation, and those people in highest stress environments (colder) the highest.

And we have a definite recent record in the size of class distributions across human groups.

And agrarianism obscured this evolution and it and possibly reversed it – which is my suspicion. And that only those groups that converted to manorialism (Rome, Germanic Europe, China) continued it. Agrarianism homogenized populations significantly, and limited evolution, in exchange for providing calories that allowed us a division of labor, specialization, and the application of our adaptation to the production of ‘tools, processes, and ideas’.

From what I can ‘guess’ from the record, females innovate in neotenic expression along the calcium-melanin channel which appears to have a dramatic effect on rates of reproduction (the time at which a woman appears desirable and fertile). And males innovate in the adaptive expression along the cognitive specialization channel – which as far as I know evolved from throwing spears (or throwing anything). And males either inherit neoteny from females or self domesticate along the testosterone channel since ‘bullying’ has to be kept at an equilibrium where there is sufficient aggression and dominance expression to maintain the competitive ability for the family, clan, tribe, without creating unmanageable internal conflict. My suspicion is that neoteny is a purely female specialization since women (unfortunately) do not select men for it, and therefore women maintain an equilibrium of their neoteny versus demonstrated male dominance, limiting of outsiders outside female social superpredation (control).

This is my current understanding of the evolutionary process and the differences in the sexes, races, subraces, groups, and classes.

What it would imply is that the great filter is rather obvious: that any species that develops a division of labor and the returns on it that allow continuous adaptation into niches (division of labor) – and especially any group that develops democracy rather than ‘paternalism’, and does not continue natural selection, will devolve. We can see genetic devolution in the west in just 150 years. We can see genetic devolution in islam and everything it touces. Islam(judaism christianity) is the most desirable falsehood other than drugs.