The reason the modern era is typically said to have started with the discovery of the new world is that this is when you began to have an actual global society/economy, with silver mining in the new world having a major effect on the Chinese economy, new crops spreading all over the world, etc.
Globalization is a process that began before the discovery of the New World, essentially during the period from 1350 to 1500. Initially, this process involved the replacement of localized market and pre-market economies within Western Europe. This Western world system then expanded overseas, becoming increasingly dominated by Britain and the United States.
Something that has held my interest for some time is the increase in cognitive ability, if one uses physics discoveries as a proxy, during the era from, say, 1850 to 1930. Any comments?
The genomic evidence indicates a decline in mean cognitive ability since at least the 1910s. This was the finding of a genomic study of 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990 (Kong et al., 2017). A similar decline was found in a genomic study of 11,822 Americans of European ancestry born between 1931 and 1953 (Beauchamp, 2016). The cause was a sharp drop in the fertility of middle-class couples.
Even if the decline in mean cognitive ability had begun c. 1900, it would have become apparent only 30 to 55 years later. Academics tend to peak in their late 30s or early 40s in terms of raw publication counts and in their 40s to early 50s in terms of high‑impact work and major grant success.
Sources:
Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 7774-7779. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600398113
Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., Stefansson, H., Young, A.I., Zink, F., Jonsdottir, G.A., Okbay, A., Sulem, P., Masson, G., Gudbjartsson, D.F., Helgason, A., Bjornsdottir, G., Thorsteinsdottir, U., & Stefansson, K. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114(5), E727-E732. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612113114
"A similar decline was found in a genomic study of 11,822 Americans of European ancestry born between 1931 and 1953 (Beauchamp, 2016). The cause was a sharp drop in the fertility of middle-class couples."
Point of clarity. If there was a drop off in the fertility of middle-class couples, who was responsible for the 'Baby Boom'?
Almost everyone. The baby boom wasn't due to some people having more babies than previously. It was due to more people getting married and having babies.
"... in all western countries during this period, average ages at marriage dropped and the proportions ever marrying increased, the proportions still single at ages 20–25 dropped by 10 percentage points or more in many countries. the proportions ever marrying climbed by 4 to 10 percentage points over the course of 25 birth cohorts, starting from women born around 1910 and reaching unprecedented high levels among women born around 1935."
Van Bavel, J., & Reher, D. S. (2013). The Baby Boom and Its Causes: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Population and Development Review, 39(2), 257-288.
Very interesting, the bell curve. It make me wonder about how very high IQ communities formed in other parts of the word. This piece suggests cottage industries passed down the generations and could easily apply in many regions.
Cottage industry could drive cognitive evolution where:
1) - the market economy was relatively large and elastic; and
2) - successful entrepreneurs translated their economic success into reproductive success.
Unfortunately, these two conditions were far from universal. The market economy was relatively small and static in most of the world until the past century or so. In addition, successful entrepreneurs in some regions would use their economic success to buy slaves (and slave women as secondary wives).
But is it statistically significant? I agree that something was happening before the Black Death, but the nature of feudal society acted as a brake on cognitive evolution. There could be no strong selection for cognitive ability as long as the feudal economy persisted.
Feudalism is a static system that discourages change and innovation. Serfs didn't own their land; in fact, they didn't really own themselves. The Lord had the last word on most things.
I don’t have the raw data to see for myself but it seems pretty significant to me. You seem to have a very pessimistic view of feudalism, also feudalism wasn’t a monolith for all of its history. It looks like something happened to me. Just because we don’t have an obvious explanation for something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
"Dividing the sample into pre and post Black Death period using 1350 CE as the cutoff date, the statistically significant positive time trend is confined to the post-Black Death period."
I agree that feudalism wasn't a monolith, but there was much less change in the feudal economy than in the market economy. The feudal system, by its very nature, discouraged change. Serfs couldn't make major decisions on land use or use of surplus capital.
The reason the modern era is typically said to have started with the discovery of the new world is that this is when you began to have an actual global society/economy, with silver mining in the new world having a major effect on the Chinese economy, new crops spreading all over the world, etc.
Globalization is a process that began before the discovery of the New World, essentially during the period from 1350 to 1500. Initially, this process involved the replacement of localized market and pre-market economies within Western Europe. This Western world system then expanded overseas, becoming increasingly dominated by Britain and the United States.
Excellent, interesting, and informative article.
Something that has held my interest for some time is the increase in cognitive ability, if one uses physics discoveries as a proxy, during the era from, say, 1850 to 1930. Any comments?
The genomic evidence indicates a decline in mean cognitive ability since at least the 1910s. This was the finding of a genomic study of 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990 (Kong et al., 2017). A similar decline was found in a genomic study of 11,822 Americans of European ancestry born between 1931 and 1953 (Beauchamp, 2016). The cause was a sharp drop in the fertility of middle-class couples.
Even if the decline in mean cognitive ability had begun c. 1900, it would have become apparent only 30 to 55 years later. Academics tend to peak in their late 30s or early 40s in terms of raw publication counts and in their 40s to early 50s in terms of high‑impact work and major grant success.
Sources:
Beauchamp, J.P. (2016). Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 7774-7779. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600398113
Kong, A., Frigge, M.L., Thorleifsson, G., Stefansson, H., Young, A.I., Zink, F., Jonsdottir, G.A., Okbay, A., Sulem, P., Masson, G., Gudbjartsson, D.F., Helgason, A., Bjornsdottir, G., Thorsteinsdottir, U., & Stefansson, K. (2017). Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114(5), E727-E732. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612113114
"A similar decline was found in a genomic study of 11,822 Americans of European ancestry born between 1931 and 1953 (Beauchamp, 2016). The cause was a sharp drop in the fertility of middle-class couples."
Point of clarity. If there was a drop off in the fertility of middle-class couples, who was responsible for the 'Baby Boom'?
Almost everyone. The baby boom wasn't due to some people having more babies than previously. It was due to more people getting married and having babies.
"... in all western countries during this period, average ages at marriage dropped and the proportions ever marrying increased, the proportions still single at ages 20–25 dropped by 10 percentage points or more in many countries. the proportions ever marrying climbed by 4 to 10 percentage points over the course of 25 birth cohorts, starting from women born around 1910 and reaching unprecedented high levels among women born around 1935."
Van Bavel, J., & Reher, D. S. (2013). The Baby Boom and Its Causes: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Population and Development Review, 39(2), 257-288.
Thanks again for your reply.
Thanks for your reply.
Very interesting, the bell curve. It make me wonder about how very high IQ communities formed in other parts of the word. This piece suggests cottage industries passed down the generations and could easily apply in many regions.
Cottage industry could drive cognitive evolution where:
1) - the market economy was relatively large and elastic; and
2) - successful entrepreneurs translated their economic success into reproductive success.
Unfortunately, these two conditions were far from universal. The market economy was relatively small and static in most of the world until the past century or so. In addition, successful entrepreneurs in some regions would use their economic success to buy slaves (and slave women as secondary wives).
That sharp increase between 1000 and 1250 is certainly interesting.
But is it statistically significant? I agree that something was happening before the Black Death, but the nature of feudal society acted as a brake on cognitive evolution. There could be no strong selection for cognitive ability as long as the feudal economy persisted.
But actually, why not ? I guess compared to antique slavery and latifundia type farms, the feudal peasantry would be selected for intelligence ?
Feudalism is a static system that discourages change and innovation. Serfs didn't own their land; in fact, they didn't really own themselves. The Lord had the last word on most things.
I don’t have the raw data to see for myself but it seems pretty significant to me. You seem to have a very pessimistic view of feudalism, also feudalism wasn’t a monolith for all of its history. It looks like something happened to me. Just because we don’t have an obvious explanation for something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
It doesn't seem to be significant:
"Dividing the sample into pre and post Black Death period using 1350 CE as the cutoff date, the statistically significant positive time trend is confined to the post-Black Death period."
I agree that feudalism wasn't a monolith, but there was much less change in the feudal economy than in the market economy. The feudal system, by its very nature, discouraged change. Serfs couldn't make major decisions on land use or use of surplus capital.