[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 188 KB, 800x533, 571513E7-60C0-44DE-9B0D-3E2C78276DBD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11007540 No.11007540 [Reply] [Original]

Are there any books about a person from the modern world going back to, or maybe being born in, prehistoric times? They’d be way smarter than everyone and stuff. If there’s not one I’ll write it.

>> No.11007545

my diary desu

>> No.11007577

>they'd be way smarter
No they wouldn't. A modern man doesn't understand how to build all the technology in the modern world. You could literally take a Homo Sapien from 10,000 BC and put them in a modern classroom and they would be just as smart. The same goes for putting a modern man back in 10,000 BC, he'd be just as primitive.

>> No.11007584

>>11007577
False. 10,000 years theres a noticable difference in evolution. What you've just said is retarded.

>> No.11007591

>>11007540
DeLillo discusses this in one of his books. Forget which one. But essentially the modern man would be completely useless to the prehistoric man because he wouldnt be able to explain any of the technologies he uses.

>> No.11007637

>>11007584
Sorry but Historians disagree with you since genetically there is no difference between a Homo Sapien and a Homo Sapien. Capacity for intelligence =/= to the preexisting body of technological innovations

>> No.11007639

>>11007591
That makes sense. Only like atheletes/professional fighters would garner respect because they could hunt and kill way more effectively than a small human.

>> No.11007647

>>11007591
Literally what I said here >>11007577
and this fucking faggot >>11007639
disagreed with and is now agreeing.
Kys

>> No.11007679

>>11007577
This is just terrible reasoning. They couldn't fucking speak any language we speak or write. They would NOT catch on and the sensory overload would drive them insane very fast.

>> No.11007699

>>11007584
[citation needed]

>> No.11007709

>>11007584
actually humans probably got stupider in the last 10,000 years because our nutrition got much worse with agriculture and nutrition has a strong determination on iq

>> No.11007721

>>11007637
Just because it is within the same species does not mean evolution has not taken place, only that it has remained "micro" evolution. Human average iq has pretty steadily been slowly rising since we started measuring. I'm not saying they would be retarded, but on average a Homo sapien from 10,000 years ago will likely not be as capable as the average of today.

>> No.11007739

>>11007721
>since we started measuring

and how long have we been measuring iq? and how long have humans existed?

is your iq low by chance?

>> No.11007747

>>11007577
Doesn’t have to be a baby, could be an average aged man who had experience and education. Even without building technology, knowing basic information about diseases and stuff would be incredibly helpful.

>> No.11007773

>>11007747
>implying you would know more about treating diseases and injuries than people native to that time

what are you going to do, go the stone age pharmacy and order some antibiotics?

>> No.11007777

>>11007739
Just over 100 years
Between 100,000 and one million, with best estimates around 200,000 years. No, my iq is fine, thanks for asking.

100 out of 200,000, and especially 10,000 is a fine sample size to draw theory from in this case, specifically because sample size is based on people, not year. In this case, we have had so many more people in the most recent hundred years than any century prior, we actually have a decent proportion here, having measured upwards of hundreds of millions.

>> No.11007781
File: 971 KB, 500x490, checked.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11007781

>>11007777
quad dubdubs.
so fresh & so clean.

>> No.11007793

>>11007777
lmao u cant think man

do you suppose better nutrition and widespread access to basic education might have something to do with it you stupid brainlet

>> No.11007801

>>11007781
quad dubs would be eight of the same digits.

>> No.11007807

>>11007801
swing and a miss.
read again.

>> No.11007813

>>11007793
That is one working theory, although if you adjust for the estimated benefits of things like this you still end up with a slight increase.

Here's a link to the wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>> No.11007827

>>11007813
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

i love how the very first statement has "citation needed", not a good look bro

>> No.11007829

>>11007709
Get out of here, Tao.

>> No.11007839

>>11007827
Mate, if you're just going to straight up not believe anything that's presented on the other side, why are you arguing?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/

Happy? There's your citation

>> No.11007883
File: 105 KB, 1360x764, 64C3B917-DC98-40F2-90ED-558B62E55F41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11007883

>>11007540
Not prehistoric times but Hard to Be a God is about a man from Earth in the future that is assigned to live on an alien planet inhabited by humans that haven’t advanced beyond the medieval age. To be honest I havent read the novel but the movie was pretty good.

>> No.11007886

>>11007839
so u think humans "evolved" between 1932 and 1978?

>> No.11007898

>>11007886
Before I answer that, I want you to define "evolved" to me. I'm not taking about macroevolution, which is interspecies change, I'm talking about microevolution, which is a change in allele frequencies.

>> No.11007903

>>11007639
No they wouldn't. Being good at a sport doesn't make your body good for hunting, nor does it mean you have the needed skills.

>> No.11007915

>>11007903
the point of sports is to test your natural ability for hunting as a group, how sharp you eyes are, how fast your reflexes are, how great your stamina is, how well you communicate with your comrades, baseball and basketball are just abstract hunting contests bro

>> No.11007927

>>11007773
No. You can embed simple ideas of how germs and such function. It would be far more advanced than what they have.

>> No.11007929

>>11007898
dude just think for a second about how many iterations of people are possible in a 50 year span

>> No.11007934

>>11007915
They're useless for prehistoric hunting.

>> No.11007939

>>11007927
>germs

most flus and other viruses come from domesticated animals, and most germs are from unsanitary urban living, you're not even thinking about the right problems, dude you are a brainlet you cant think im sorry

>> No.11007943

>>11007929
Iq test was made in 1904, they only first noticed the Flynn affect in '32. Retroactively it held true, so that's 114 years. Again, though, our sample is not years but people, of which we have tested hundreds of millions and found a significant increase in iq. As far as generations, likely 4-5, so evolution is not the only factor, and not even the only possiblility. As was mentioned before, nutrition and education play a part, and may very well be the whole of it. That being said, we do have evidence that does not allow us to dismiss the possibility that people actually are slowly and steadily becoming smarter.

>> No.11007948

>>11007934
the guy who can see the spin on a 90 mile an hour pitch and has the reflexes to catch a line drive is going to be a better hunter than you

>> No.11007963

>>11007943
people are getting better at taking iq tests, if you test people on navigating by the stars or tracking fauna we are definitely getting stupider

>> No.11007974

>>11007963
Iq tests are a difficult thing to practice, but that is one of the accepted theories out there, so I can't really argue against it. Any way you look at it though, by our best measure (the iq test) people are becoming smarter, so we have reason to believe that an average person from today would be above average in prehistoric times. Can we come to an agreement there?

>> No.11007989

>>11007974
>best measure
The IQ Test is by most accounts highly flawed though

>> No.11007998

>>11007974
no we can't agree people are getting smarter, you're taking a 100 year trend on an arbitrary test and trying to apply it to the last 10,000 years, if this trend was of people gaining 8 iq point per decade or whatever backwards for 10,000 years then prehistoric people would have iqs of .00001 or something, its ridiculous

>> No.11008003

>>11007989
I didn't say it was 100% accurate, and I didn't say we could garrentee they would be more intelligent. But the iq test really is our best guess at someone's intelligence, and by that merit we have evidence pointing towards an increase. Can we agree on that?

>> No.11008009

>>11007989
especially the tests flynn was using that involved sat style vocabulary stuff like "dick are to pussies what assholes are to _fill in the blank_" which is entirely a test of english literacy, not all iq tests are that retarded but they all have flaws

>> No.11008019

>>11007998
Again, we have adequate sample size as it is by people. The iq curve is not exactly 8 per decade, but would more likely than not be logistical rather than linear. Again, most of that if not all is due to nutrition and education, so you would expect to see the difference between 1400-1410 to be near negligeble.

>> No.11008028

>>11008003
wow you REALLY want to believe iqs are inceasing...why is that? were your parents retards or something?

>> No.11008036

>>11008019
why do you think the sample being wide makes up for it being incredibly shallow? testing 1 million people for ten minutes tells you nothing about what testing 10 people for 1 million years would return

>> No.11008054

>>11008028
I was debating someone that seemed pretty reasonable earlier. Maybe calm down the ad hominem?

>>11008036
It's not really all that shallow. If you were to design a study you would go longer than 100 years obviously, but 100 out of 200,000 really isn't statistically insignificant. The reason I brought up that the sample was actually people, was because this does not cause the significance, but amplifies it.