patrick.net

Just a theory, but what if different components of intelligence are located on sex specific chromosomes? Say, more of them corresponding to emotional intelligence on the X chromosome and more correspondence with spatial and abstract reasoning on the Y?

Quigley says

Say, more of them corresponding to emotional intelligence on the X chromosome and more correspondence with spatial and abstract reasoning on the Y?

Only Hitler talks like that.

Kidding, your theory makes sense. Remember when Lawrence Summers made a simple observation of gender specific behavior in his students and daughters, only to have the entire world turn SJW on him before there were SJW's? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues

"Cooperation" in economics usually means division of labor and mutually willing exchange, not everyone trying to do the same thing and competing in each other's niche while stepping on each other's toes.

Experience and natural selection also count for a lot. Folks that left Africa faced new challenges that selected survivors. The stay behinds, not so much.

Aphroman says

Cooperation - the process of working together to the same end.


Cooperation - is the process of groups of organisms working or acting together for common, mutual, or some underlying benefit, as opposed to working in competition for selfish benefit.

In economics cooperation - the formation and operation of cooperatives. also known as co-ops

May want to read up on what happened in the first few years after the May Flower landed in Plymouth:

https://mises.org/library/what-really-happened-plymouth

In addition to gender division of labor (allowing women less exposed to risks associated with hunting and battles), what the Cro-Mags had over the Neanderthals was a cross-continent trade network (as evidenced by the Cro-Mags' weapons and tools made from much better material transported from very far away). If our ancestors had tried a large scale co-op instead, they'd have starved to death just like the early settlers at Plymouth Colony (and Virginia Colony before them) found out. Personal responsibility (i.e. sub-division of resources into private domains) and division of labor through mutually willing trade are what bring forth resource abundance (and survival in a resource-limited environment, where Economics apply/matter).

MisterLefty says

Experience and natural selection also count for a lot. Folks that left Africa faced new challenges that selected survivors. The stay behinds, not so much.

Very well said. There was also a fundamental economic difference between sub-Sahara Africa vs. regions entered into by groups who were driven out by the stay-behinds: sub-Sahara Africa had an abundance of easily attainable food year-round for human ancestors; poisonous snakes/insects, food poisoning and tropical diseases put a lid on human population growth (before modern medicine lifted that lid in the 20th century), so the population was almost always below the land's natural (food) carry-capacity. The driven-out groups however faced much harsher environments, where food was either scarcer to begin with or had seasonality that made food almost unattainable during part of the year (winter) if not artificially stored / transported. OTOH, random disease/poison death rates were much lower in cooler climate zones. That environmental stability/cyclicity made intelligence, knowledge accumulation, division of labor and trade into evolutionary advantages, as they would raise the land's (food) carry-capacity, especially when the population was less exposed to random death events like snake/insect venom and tropical diseases.