Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:41:52 UTC No. 16629629

>>16629624
some mutation or aliens. could go either way

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:59:42 UTC No. 16629700

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:45:33 UTC No. 16629722

The best explanation I've found is that Neanderthals were smarter overall, but Sapiens were better at learning from eachother. This translates into the real world, as our greatest advancements have reliably been the work of those smartest among us who are the most disagreeable and unconscientious.

I also imagine Sapiens were more promiscuous generally. Neanderthals lived in the cold a lot longer, and were apex predators, so they would've been much more regimented and conservative. Even at their height, there were never that many.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:12:17 UTC No. 16629772

>>16629722
>The best explanation I've found is that Neanderthals were smarter overall
Although their cranial capacity is slightly higher, we have much less evidence of Neanderthal technological or cultural innovation than for Sapiens from 400.000-30.000 BC. An interesting example however: https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-uncover-hearth-neanderthals-may-have-used-make-tar

>have reliably been the work of those smartest among us who are the most disagreeable and unconscientious
No, those are exceptions like Newton. They are usually only disagreeable in the sense of having significantly original thoughts and views, but not in a wider, social sense.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:15:41 UTC No. 16629855

>>16629772

I'm not speaking of MOST intelligent people. I'm speaking specifically of those most LIKELY to make transformational changes of some kind. Higher intelligence tends to correlate positively with higher conscientiousness and lower disagreeability, but these folks are much less likely to take you from zero to one. That would explain why sapiens were better at making technological progress even without being as smart overall. Sapien-Neanderthal hybrids sacrificed intelligence for greater agreeability and conscientiousness, and it proved the winning combination.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:30:35 UTC No. 16629870

>>16629855

I'd be curious to see if pure Neanderthals could be brought back and raised in modern human families if they'd be smarter on average than modern Sapiens. Though they only make up a single-digit percentile of any of modern Man's ancestry, they were realistically more like a tenth to a fourth of our actual ancestry. It's just the bits of our ancestry of theirs most likely to survive to the present day is the bits of theirs that was actually unique to theirs and not ours. The similar stuff got selected out. Surely not all of our couplings were rapes if we were doing it that often. That implies we can communicate well enough to where raising a Neanderthal baby wouldn't be the horrific nightmare that we've seen of humans trying to raise chimps. As well they should, since we know they also had a hyoid bone of similar function to our own:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/could-neanderthals-talk-breakthrough-study-suggests-our-ancient-cousins-had

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:26:45 UTC No. 16629892

>>16629855
>even without being as smart overall.
Is there any indication of this being the case besides the braincase?

>I'm speaking specifically of those most LIKELY to make transformational changes of some kind.
Examples?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:35:57 UTC No. 16630530

>>16629892
Something along the lines of inventing the steam engine, or even inventing the atlatl. The first people to figure out major changes like that don't tend to be the most sociable. They like to spend lots of time alone and obsess on weird interests nobody else bothers with, but sometimes it ends up paying off.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:30:14 UTC No. 16630853

It's difficult to believe there hasn't been genetic advancements in intelligence in our recent history. For some of the peoples of the world if not all of us.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:59:00 UTC No. 16631733

>>16629772
>Although their cranial capacity is slightly higher
its not, ancient homo sapiens skull (cromagnon) was bigger than any known neanderthal skull ~30-70k years ago

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:10:53 UTC No. 16631795

>>16631733
so avg was higher for neanderthals?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:22:40 UTC No. 16631838

>>16629722
>still associating brain case with intellect
Go ask some blue whales to...you know what, no. Figure it the fuck out, retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:43:04 UTC No. 16631883

>>16629624
>evolution

was disproved quite a while ago. It amazes me how retarded the masses are

>you believe in god hur dur

no.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:46:10 UTC No. 16631888

>>16629624
>we
You got a mouse in your pocket?

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:46:24 UTC No. 16632187

>>16631838
Blue whales are by some distance among the smartest animals in the world. The correlation between average brain size and Spearman's g, within and between species, is one of the most robust findings in both biology and the social sciences.

Indeed, the correlation is much stronger within than between species. The hominids were more part of the same family than different species, so the effect would be particularly strong there.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 05:31:16 UTC No. 16632281

>>16629624
ITT: Darwinist woo-woo

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 05:34:54 UTC No. 16632282

>>16629624
We don't even know whether humans evolved. We just have fossils of some apes which look like subhumans. The fact is, there are plenty of reasons to doubt that humans evolved because you cannot explain how consciousness can arise from non-conscious animals and matter (look up the hard problem of consciousness).

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:12:27 UTC No. 16632287

>>16632282
There are plenty of reasons to doubt that rocks turn into germs, germs into animals, and animals turn into people in general. In fact, its ridiculous

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:13:10 UTC No. 16632288

>>16631795
>>16631733

cant you read even the picture says neanderthalensis had the biggest brain capacite with 1650 ml
cro magnon 1616

dont look at solely those skull pictures in there but read the text as well

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:15:38 UTC No. 16632290

>>16632282
There are plenty of reasons to doubt that rocks turn into germs, germs into animals, and animals into people in the first place. In fact, it's ridiculous

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:24:00 UTC No. 16632306

>>16629722
I imagine them as occiptal-lobemaxxed autists who just liked to hunt and be comfy, entertaining themselves with their rich imaginative abilities, but were very socially awkward and shy. Then the normies came.
I wonder how they would like living in our times..

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:39:46 UTC No. 16632314

>>16629772
Maybe cranial capacity isn't the interesting bit. What did a neanderthal bitch's ass look like? How did a Sapien decide to go for that and raise a family? There may have been some hot Neanderthal bitches.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 12:23:08 UTC No. 16632575

>>16629722
Yeah we're essentially noggers compared to neanderthals. They really should've rose to primacy not us, world would look a lot better I'd imagine. I hate it when quantity wins over quality.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 12:35:13 UTC No. 16632585

>>16632288
that's why i wrote ''so the avg was higher for neanders'', asking if the largest skull found overall was cromagnon. his image didn't make sense with his claim

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 18:54:23 UTC No. 16632995

>>16632306
they would be posting on here and DeviantArt

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 19:10:01 UTC No. 16633016

>>16632575
>then you find out the extra cranial capacity was actually just head trauma protection
Annotate your assumptions appropriately.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 19:48:09 UTC No. 16633079

We're not smarter than stone age humans.

We simply have more acumulated experience in something called a library.

We seem smart because we now know to not do a lot of stupid shit that gets you killed, after centuries of random people being killed in horrible ways.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 19:51:57 UTC No. 16633085

>>16633079
My favorite is "Children dying bad!"
>be child
>put random shit in mouth
Gee, I wonder how we found out what was poisonous...

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 19:54:35 UTC No. 16633086

>>16633085
pretty sure a medical library would have really fucked up shit or some really hilarious stuff.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:09:04 UTC No. 16633178

>>16632575
You should stop getting your ''education'' from nazi neet murderers like Christian Vikernes

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:36:33 UTC No. 16633552

>>16633016
Yeah cause thay went hand to hand with fucking wooly rhinoceros and the cave bear( bigger than griz) and of course wooly mammoth.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:40:09 UTC No. 16633555

>>16633178
Lol. It seems the neanderthal camp is totally split down two extremes, either they where autistic peaceful creatures who were conservative and had spirituality who were built crazy strong cause all their game was crazy strong or that they where night vision having cannibalism enjoyers who hunted sapiens for food and sex slaves.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:29:23 UTC No. 16633595

>>16633555
Both are retarded. Side 1 is the noble savage camp who thinks they were living in harmony with the natural world like it’s an avatar movie because apparently thinking literal cavemen sometimes wouldn’t get along with their neighbours somehow translates to modern racism. Side 2 are creationists buying into a grifter’s demonstrably wrong reconstruction that he made up to sell a book because they can’t stand the idea of being related to something other than us that could speak, draw and imagine. The reality is they would have been similar to any other hunter gatherer with both spiritualism and art on the one hand and superstition, violence and warfare on the the other

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:54:12 UTC No. 16634098

>>16633555
>>16633595

I'm in the camp that sees them the same as you. Similar to Sapiens, but they had to be lacking in certain specific advantages to lose out. Otherwise, we'd be majority Neanderthal and minority Sapien. Since we have decent evidence they were overall smarter than us, perhaps they really were worse at learning from eachother, at copying eachother's behavior. Given that we know rates of ASD correlates positively with percentage of Neanderthalic ancestry, it'd explain a lot.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:58:21 UTC No. 16634101

>>16632314

Probably by killing her husband and children and threatening to do the same to her if she didn't become his wife and make children for him. Or possibly just kidnapping her as a child and making her his wife when she grew old enough.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:43:11 UTC No. 16634225

>>16632281
>God (Yahweh) didnt mention it in his book of jewish fairy tales. s-so it cant POSSIBLY have happened right?

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:22:32 UTC No. 16634257

>>16634098
>Since we have decent evidence they were overall smarter than us
Anything besides the braincase?

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:30:02 UTC No. 16634305

>>16629624
Modern humans had the largest cranial capacity ever, until some shit happened around the bronze age collapse, only then the cranial capacity started to go down.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:36:14 UTC No. 16634316

>>16634305

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:44:45 UTC No. 16634328

>>16634257
They didn’t have /pol/

Anonymous at Tue, 1 Apr 2025 02:11:32 UTC No. 16634518

>>16634305
>>16634316

My money's on domestication syndrome. Wolves have larger brains than dogs. Why wouldn't the same be true for humans?