Drop a native from the jungles of New Guinea on the streets of New York and how would he fare? There is a lot of socialization and acquired knowledge that goes into a defenseless human surviving any environment. I think equatorial societies don't require as much adaptation (tools) or migration as the Northern Hemispheric societies. In an equatorial climate, the plants produce all year long, the weather stays about the same and you can live a good life in a loincloth carrying a pointed stick. The Northern Hemisphere is subject to much more climatic change, both seasonal and longer term like mini-ice ages. And t's pretty obvious that technological progress is a step by step process of innovation that requires the exchange of information between differing civilizations ( and a few gifted thinkers) This process is promoted by migration and commerce.
True, I was commenting on B-bob's post though. If I recall correctly Cro-Magnon skulls show the same brain capacity as modern humans so they are basically almost the same as modern humans so my guess is yes.
This is a bit of a tangent but I don't think Equatorial climates are necessarily easier than Northern Hemisphere climates. Some of the most challenging habitats for humans to live in, deep jungle, are found along the Equator at the same time a temperate climate like the Pacific Northwest is almost ideal for human survival.
This was from a general story about the malleability of IQ in relation to the environment. I thought it was interesting: [rquoter] One gauge of that is that when poor children are adopted into upper-middle-class households, their I.Q.’s rise by 12 to 18 points, depending on the study. For example, a French study showed that children from poor households adopted into upper-middle-class homes averaged an I.Q. of 107 by one test and 111 by another. Their siblings who were not adopted averaged 95 on both tests. Another indication of malleability is that I.Q. has risen sharply over time. Indeed, the average I.Q. of a person in 1917 would amount to only 73 on today’s I.Q. test. Half the population of 1917 would be considered mentally r****ded by today’s measurements, Professor Nisbett says. [/rquoter]
I'm going to argue against my own point somewhat. I saw a Nova special awhile back about the hominid Hobbit like creatures found in Flores. The fossils most resemble tiny Homo Erectus and have a brain capacity much smaller than homo erectus yet they also appear to have been able to do things like make stone tools and hunt large game. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441559a.html Its possible then that brain capacity alone may not be a standard for intelligence.
It is the surface area of the neocortex. That is the reason for all the sulci and gyri – folding the outside of the brain gives you much more surface in a fixed space. This is also why women, with smaller average cranial volume than men, generally average out to the same intelligence.
Great point. I guess without getting hold of an actual homo erectus or some other pre-sapian hominid we will never truly know how intelligent they could be.
This seems like more of an indictment on our intelligence-testing methods than a statement about actual intelligence viz. environment.
160,000 years ago in Ethiopia there were men who pretty much match up exactly with modern homo sapiens.
