# What is known about ancient brain development? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 16, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632 "2009-03-16T16:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/21 "2009-03-17T22:02:54Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > But going back to the Ancient Greeks, people preferred diluted wine and other alcoholic drinks to raw water because of the disease problem. So I don’t know how it would’ve changed in 18th century. > I do wonder about all those drunken men in relation to the aggression common then. Right, that’s why I mentioned “small beer”, which is the mildly alcoholic beer that everyone in say, London, drank because of the disease issue. Same with watered wine further south and east. What changed in the 18th C was that cheap gin made it possible for almost anyone to consume large amounts of alcohol–you could drink small beer or watered wine all day and not consume as much alcohol as in a pint of gin. So that’s the generation that I would expect to see with the strongestl developmental issues. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/22 "2009-03-18T00:55:02Z")
I know the Flynn effect got mentioned earlier, but it didn’t get discussed. Don’t we have statistical evidence that IQ scores are going up over time, and have been for as long as we’ve been testing IQ? Don’t we also have evidence that IQs in less-developed countries are lower than IQs in more developed countries? Wouldn’t the same trends hold true over time–e.g., that as countries developed, measures of IQ would increase? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_C](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Captain\_C](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_C)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/23 "2009-03-18T05:17:10Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Sir, that is not only ignorant, it’s downright foolish. Youn don’t live by farming unless you know a lot. Modern farmers are well-educated half-scientist half-businessmen who use capital markets to invest in efficient agriculture. I’ve never met a “dumb redneck farmer” in my life. There’s quite the difference between the farmer and the farmhand though. The farmer may need to know all of the specifics of farming sure. The farmhand, of which there will be dozens per single farm, need little more than a strong back and the ability to follow orders. So one guy out of 25 is intellectually stimulated by farming. What do the other 24 do to develop their thinking abilities? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/24 "2009-03-18T05:30:44Z")
> [@Captain\_C](#): > > … So one guy out of 25 is intellectually stimulated by farming. What do the other 24 do to develop their thinking abilities? Think about what they can do to get off that damn farm?!? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/25 "2009-03-18T05:49:07Z")
> [@Captain\_C](#): > > It has been proven that we as a species are getting taller, mostly due to proper nutrition as we age. Quite the opposite. People were much taller 10, 000 years ago, then they shrank. It’s only in the last 10 years or so that we’ve managed to reach our original, “natural” heights. [QUOTE=Evil Economist] I know the Flynn effect got mentioned earlier, but it didn’t get discussed. Don’t we have statistical evidence that IQ scores are going up over time, and have been for as long as we’ve been testing IQ? Don’t we also have evidence that IQs in less-developed countries are lower than IQs in more developed countries? Wouldn’t the same trends hold true over time–e.g., that as countries developed, measures of IQ would increase? [/quote] The cause of Flynn effect is controversial. The simplest solution IMO is that people today are much better at doing IQ tests because they are exposed to IQ tests more. The people with the highest IQs in the world aren’t particularly bright by any other measure, but they do all have one thing in common: they do IQ tests in their spare time. The Flynn effect can possibly be explained by the increasing prevalence of IQ tests and IQ test surrogates, everything from Dora the Explorer through to kids puzzle books and MCDonald’s placemats and computer game puzzles througfh to sodoku. All those things have also increased over the last century and are all linked fairly well to level of economic/industrial development. So while IQ may well have increased it’s still very, very contentious whether intelligence has increased. If we extrapolate the Flynn effect (3 points/decade) then we are forced to the conclusion that people in WWI had an average IQ of 73, so stupid that they couldn’t possibly be admitted into the modern army. Now we have to be careful about extrapolating too far back, but that doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how we look at it. So the more sensible interpretation is that people in 1914 weren’t more stupid than people today, rather that they weren’t as good at doing IQ tests. The other explanation is that more stimulation leads to greater intelligence, but once again this leads us to conclude that people in 1914 were borderline retarded. While I don’t doubt that stimulation is the answer I think that it’s the very specific IQ-test-mimicking stimulation that has increased, resulting in and increase in ability to do IQ tests rather than any actual increase in intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_C](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Captain\_C](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_C)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/26 "2009-03-18T06:02:58Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Quite the opposite. People were much taller 10, 000 years ago, then they shrank. It’s only in the last 10 years or so that we’ve managed to reach our original, “natural” heights. Really? That’s fascinating. Can you recommend a cite for that which doesn’t require too much foreknowledge of physiology? ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/27 "2009-03-18T06:46:24Z")
I don’t know if there’s much evidence that humans were shorter or taller 10,000 years ago. There’s certainly no reason to believe we were shorter, what with fossils like [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster). Half our brain capacity, but just as tall as Homo Sapiens. Brain capacity of Homo Sapiens has remained pretty much constant for a long time hasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/28 "2009-03-18T07:28:41Z")
> [@Captain\_C](#): > > I assume that an ancient farmer being out hoeing fields all day, or other such tasks as the masses had to accomplish, would have not given sufficient intellectual stimulation for the brain to develop. I’m not sure that is a great assumption. First off, in a sustenance situation, people need a huge variety of skills. Farming is just a part of it. They also build their own houses and furnishings, create fairly complicated things like cooking oil and clothing, track animals, create tools and weapons, etc. Every day would have a new a different set of challenges.It was also probably common to interact with people who speak different languages and dialects, and most people would probably be able to speak two or three just to do basic trade. I’d venture that is more stimulating than your average office-drone job. Don’t think there wasn’t plenty of debate, either. Ancient societies had games, religions, political structures, etc. All kinds of things that could keep you busy thinking and talking for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/29 "2009-03-18T08:27:47Z")
> [@Captain\_C](#): > > Really? That’s fascinating. Can you recommend a cite for that which doesn’t require too much foreknowledge of physiology? [I just posted this link](http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/) in another thread. Pretty readable although, like all Diamond’s work, I don’t agree with all his conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/30 "2009-03-18T16:29:00Z")
> [@MLS](#): > > Jared Diamond > > \ > > Plus, their very survival was dependent upon their ability to intelligently make use of their environment, whereas a person in a post-industrial society could be well below average in intelligence and still survive to reproduce. What I took away from that was that Diamond emphasized that _selection for disease resistance_ in densely-populated farming societies so far outweighed _selection for intelligent response to the environment_ that, effectively, we in modern (densely populated) societies are overwhelmingly selected for our disease resistance, not intelligence; whereas pre-animal-agriculture hunter-gatherers in very small bands were exposed to almost no epidemic disease at all, and thus other selection pressures (like intelligence) could have significant effect. By the time our farming society Little Einstein is old enough to choose not to stick a fork in the electric socket (thus having a chance to survive because of intelligence), he’s been exposed to waves of measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, bubonic plague, typhus, influenza, cholera, dysentery, meningitis, whooping cough, and so on (thus already having been selected for disease resistance). ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/31 "2009-03-18T16:40:53Z")
> [@Captain\_C](#): > > There’s quite the difference between the farmer and the farmhand though. The farmer may need to know all of the specifics of farming sure. The farmhand, of which there will be dozens per single farm, need little more than a strong back and the ability to follow orders. So one guy out of 25 is intellectually stimulated by farming. What do the other 24 do to develop their thinking abilities? First off, many farmers don’t have any " dumb farmhands". Second, those “dumb farmhands” are probably involved in checking the weather, helping plan the crop, running quick financial estimates, driving vehicles, and repairing vehicles. Frankly, I’d wager they get as much more use out of their brains than most computer programmers. None of which in the least matters, however, because you have no idea what you are talking about in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/32 "2009-03-18T16:41:18Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > What I took away from that was that Diamond emphasized that _selection for disease resistance_ in densely-populated farming societies so far outweighed _selection for intelligent response to the environment_ that, effectively, we in modern (densely populated) societies are overwhelmingly selected for our disease resistance, not intelligence; whereas pre-animal-agriculture hunter-gatherers in very small bands were exposed to almost no epidemic disease at all, and thus other selection pressures (like intelligence) could have significant effect. > > By the time our farming society Little Einstein is old enough to choose not to stick a fork in the electric socket (thus having a chance to survive because of intelligence), he’s been exposed to waves of measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, bubonic plague, typhus, influenza, cholera, dysentery, meningitis, whooping cough, and so on (thus already having been selected for disease resistance). I’ve never read Diamond’s book, but I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Why would selection for one trait somehow damp out selection for other traits? Is there some reason disease resistance is incompatible with intelligence? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/33 "2009-03-18T17:02:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > If we extrapolate the Flynn effect (3 points/decade) then we are forced to the conclusion that people in WWI had an average IQ of 73, so stupid that they couldn’t possibly be admitted into the modern army. Now we have to be careful about extrapolating too far back, but that doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how we look at it. So the more sensible interpretation is that people in 1914 weren’t more stupid than people today, rather that they weren’t as good at doing IQ tests. I understand your point, but I wonder if extrapolating back to WWI is taking it too far. If we looked (for example) at changes in average height from 1950 to 2000, and extrapolated back to 1900, what would the estimated average height be? Would we end up predicing that people in early 1900s were only 5’4"? Maybe there are two IQ steady states–a low nutrition steady-state IQ and a high-nutrition steady state IQ, and Flynn effect measures the shift between the two states. While “getting better at taking IQ tests” might explain Flynn effect, I wonder why it happens so consistently worldwide, why low-income nations have lower IQs than high-income countries, and why the Flynn effect has leveled off in the most highly-developed countries. These are the sort of relationships we see when we looks at graphs of average heights. These facts all seem to me to point toward nutrition being the causative agent rather than familiarity with IQ tests (i.e., relation between IQ scores and nutrition would explain all effects, but familiarity with IQ tests would only explain some of them) ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/34 "2009-03-18T17:11:29Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’ve never read Diamond’s book, but I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Why would selection for one trait somehow damp out selection for other traits? Is there some reason disease resistance is incompatible with intelligence? It isn’t incompatible, but if you don’t survive the onslaught of disease, it doesn’t matter if you’re intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/35 "2009-03-18T19:34:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > These facts all seem to me to point toward nutrition being the causative agent rather than familiarity with IQ tests (i.e., relation between IQ scores and nutrition would explain all effects, but familiarity with IQ tests would only explain some of them) It seems likely to me that nutrition levels and IQ test taking skills correlate not because one causes the other, but because the kind of thinking that is conducive to the the development of cultural patterns that can construct social engineering structures that successfully distribute nutrition on a very large scale is also the kind of thinking that is conducive to success on IQ tests. In other words, the same kind of abstract puzzle solving skills contribute both to success on IQ tests and to the ability to do things that end up getting nutrition distributed on a very large scale. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/36 "2009-03-18T22:57:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > These facts all seem to me to point toward nutrition being the causative agent rather than familiarity with IQ tests (i.e., relation between IQ scores and nutrition would explain all effects, but familiarity with IQ tests would only explain some of them) I don’t know about that. Presumably, you have nutrition more or less figured out before you can afford to go to school. Kids who are so poor that they can’t eat properly either don’t get to go to school or get fed at school. Schools teach the kind of thinking that helps on an IQ test. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/37 "2009-03-20T03:04:56Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I understand your point, but I wonder if extrapolating back to WWI is taking it too far. Well as the Wiki article notes, even if we look at times inside the known data rage, it suggests that 50% of WWII soldiers so severely retarded that they couldn’t be admitted into the modern army. I used the WWI example as an extreme, but even within the range it seems implausible on the face of it that actual intelligence was o low in the past, rather than ability to do IQ tests. Certainly reading the letters of random WWII soldiers one wouldn’t; come to the conclusion that they had the same IQ as Forrest Gump. > [@](#): > > If we looked (for example) at changes in average height from 1950 to 2000, and extrapolated back to 1900, what would the estimated average height be? Would we end up predicting that people in early 1900s were only 5’4"? Nope, we’d actually end up with people in 1860 who were ~5’4”. And that is a very good prediction because they actually were about 5’4” in 1860. > [@](#): > > Maybe there are two IQ steady states–a low nutrition steady-state IQ and a high-nutrition steady state IQ, and Flynn effect measures the shift between the two states. The trouble is that by all objective measures childhood nutrition in the developed world declined very slightly from 1979 to 1999, yet the Flynn effect continued apace for the those 20 years. So it seems implausible that nutrition is the answer. > [@](#): > > While “getting better at taking IQ tests” might explain Flynn effect, I wonder why it happens so consistently worldwide…. Because the standard of living, including wealth and education, is increasing consistently worldwide. Moreover the availability of IQ type puzzles has also increased worldwide. Soduko or Rubik’s cube, to use two obvious examples, were never confined to the US, but were popular even in the developing world. > [@](#): > > why low-income nations have lower IQs than high-income countries… That’s simple question with a very complicated answer. Some of it is undoubtedlynutrition, but a lot of it is that education correlates very highly with income. Other factors could also come into play such as income being tightly linked to availability of Rubik’s cubes and Soduko books, and national income being tightly linked to diversity of experience. IOW whether my explanation or yours is correct we would both expect low income nations to perform poorly on IQ tests. > [@](#): > > and why the Flynn effect has leveled off in the most highly-developed countries. These are the sort of relationships we see when we looks at graphs of average heights. Once again, no matter whether it is nutrition or changed stimulus this is precisely what we would predict. There must be an upper limit on IQ test performance just as there must be an upper limit in running the mile. No matter whether people approach those limits due to better training or better diet the limit still exists, and once it is approached any improvement effect will level off. IOW just as feeding children to the point of obesity won’t make them perform better on IQ tests, neither will forcing them to do puzzle books 16 hours a day. At some point the factor ceases to be limiting and further addition of that factor won’t produce any increase. > [@](#): > > These facts all seem to me to point toward nutrition being the causative agent rather than familiarity with IQ tests (i.e., relation between IQ scores and nutrition would explain all effects, but familiarity with IQ tests would only explain some of them) To me it seems that _both_ hypotheses predict the observations you’ve mentioned. The difference is that in one case we have to accept that WWII soldiers really did have an average IQ of ~80. In the other case we only need to accept that they were better at doing IQ tests and in reality no smarter than people today. To me it’s time to start sharpening that razor of Billy Ockham’s. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/38 "2009-03-20T16:39:00Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > First off, many farmers don’t have any " dumb farmhands". Second, those “dumb farmhands” are probably involved in checking the weather, helping plan the crop, running quick financial estimates, driving vehicles, and repairing vehicles. > > Frankly, I’d wager they get as much more use out of their brains than most computer programmers. > > None of which in the least matters, however, because you have no idea what you are talking about in the first place. First, your farms and therefore farmers apparently are differently structured then out here. A lot of small farms run by a moderatley educated farmer until two generations ago were lost and absorbed into the big industrial-size farms. Today only 5 to 10% of the general population are farmers over here (don’t know for the US). That farmers invest financially is news to me. I was thinking of the typical farm village - whether out in Bavaria or in Iowa or the Appalchians - and sitting down with the typical population to have a chat, and listen to their opinions. Not much education or critical thinking, just doing what they’ve always done, voting conservative, listenting to Fox News or the pastor and reading right newspapers. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/39 "2009-03-20T16:43:17Z")
> [@Captain\_C](#): > > 1. Lack of intellectual stimulation. I know after a day of monotonous labor my brain feels much less stimulated than after a rousing debate in class. I assume that an ancient farmer being out hoeing fields all day, or other such tasks as the masses had to accomplish, would have not given sufficient intellectual stimulation for the brain to develop. Yet in your OP you asked not about outliers - exceptions - but normal people: the average population. So up til 200 years ago, Joe Average walked behind the plough without thinking (as farmhand or small-size farmer), and went to bed in the evening. 150 years ago, Joe went to the city and worked in a factory, went home and slept. 50 years ago, Joe went to work in a factory with automated belts, went home and slept. Today, Joe goes to work in an office, doing routine chores, goes home and sleeps. 70 years ago, Joe could read the newspaper after work, but most people read the Sun equivalent. 60 years ago, Joe could listen to radio after work, and most people listened to adventure and crime stories. 30 years ago, Joe can watch TV, but most people watch soaps. So on average, I don’t see much change. ---
**Author:** ![KnitWit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@KnitWit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KnitWit)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632/40 "2009-03-20T18:06:29Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > That farmers invest financially is news to me. I was thinking of the typical farm village - whether out in Bavaria or in Iowa or the Appalchians - and sitting down with the typical population to have a chat, and listen to their opinions. Not much education or critical thinking, just doing what they’ve always done, voting conservative, listenting to Fox News or the pastor and reading right newspapers. I don’t know any generalized farming statistics for the U.S. However, I grew up on a farm. My father has a bachelor’s degree from a Big Ten university, as do both his parents. My mother also has a degree (though she doesn’t participate in the farming). As I understand it, farmers must be able to play the futures market and invest wisely. How do you think they buy seed and sell grain for thousand acre farms? My dad runs another business aside from the farm, but as for farm profits he gets them in very large doses and then must manage that money, investing it both for his financial future as well as for the future of the farm. Yes, they are conservative. However, your image of “typical dumb farmers” is probably very over-generalized. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-known-about-ancient-brain-development/489632.md?page=3)