VALUES

[Veritas Aequitas]

Emotional intelligence is why left wing people who are emotionally intelligent are generally more intelligent than right wing people whose emotional intelligence is stunted.

Do you have researched evidence on the above?
It is more likely due to your prejudice and confirmation bias.

Yes, there are extremes from both side, but on average the left-wingers are the worst of the lot in term of rational discussions.

E.g. how can left-wingers like those from Antifa have high emotional intelligence.
From my personal experience with left-wingers, they are more "emotional" than being emotional intelligent.
In most cases, I have came across, left-wingers do not persist in rational discussions with arguments and reasons but they merely get emotional with all sort of outbursts or avoidances.

Note this emotional outburst and madness from Ben Affleck had while Bill Maher and Sam Harris were trying to argue rationally with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

The evidence I bring to the table is political, especially present day British politics, and to a more limited extent American politics, including South America.
For instance the British Conservative Party neglected to lay up stores of personal protective equipment against an inevitable pandemic, and moreover starved the National Health Service of powers and money. The British Conservative party, while there are a few good men in it, tends to neglect welfare of the poor while steering profits from economic growth towards the already rich.

OK. You did not qualify earlier thus my earlier response.
I agree in this specific case, the UK government handling of the Covid19 pandemic is a great embarrassment.

I read some reports, there is a shift of the majority of the left to the center and what is representing the "left" at the present are the irrational and emotional "progressives."

On the other hand, the dominant right has also shifted to the center this is why many on the left since 5 years ago has converted to the right. The extreme right are not that dominant at present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Example, DNA/RNA ALL humans are embedded with the inherent faculty of intellect/intelligence but it is not active in the majority of people. However the trend of intelligence from 10,000 years ago to the present, is increasing on average.

No. Not a scrap of evidence for that at all.
There is not much selective pressure for intelligence. There is far more for the ability to do violence against other humans.

Why not?
The more intelligent ones are able to select healthier mates, thus greater chance of producing intelligent children.

DNA/RNA ALL humans are "programmed" with an algorithm with the potential and drive to improve and progress from whatever their current state. This "improvement" potential may not be active in all humans but the potential is unfolding in many.
Instinctively this is noted in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Re progress in "intelligence" [intellect] for example,
15-17 years kids are studying and were able to do calculus since the last 50 years.
Were such 15-17 years old kids doing the calculus 10,000 years ago or 5000, or 1000, or 500 or 100 years ago?
The above is happening in so many aspects of human society.

How can you missed these evidences?

[Sculptor]

Re progress in "intelligence" [intellect] for example,
15-17 years kids are studying and were able to do calculus since the last 50 years.
Were such 15-17 years old kids doing the calculus 10,000 years ago or 5000, or 1000, or 500 or 100 years ago?
The above is happening in so many aspects of human society.

How can you missed these evidences?

There was no such thing as calculus until the 17thC so you are not comparing like with like.
Since there are more 15-17yos now than at any time in history, so your observation is meaningless.
The ability do do calculus id not a measure of intelligence.
The ability to do calculus in a result of education, not intelligence.
You have offered ZERO evidence.
How many of these maths whizz-kids can track a deer in the forest, or skin a rabbit with a stone?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re progress in "intelligence" [intellect] for example,
15-17 years kids are studying and were able to do calculus since the last 50 years.
Were such 15-17 years old kids doing the calculus 10,000 years ago or 5000, or 1000, or 500 or 100 years ago?
The above is happening in so many aspects of human society.

How can you missed these evidences?

There was no such thing as calculus until the 17thC so you are not comparing like with like.
Since there are more 15-17yos now than at any time in history, so your observation is meaningless.
The ability do do calculus id not a measure of intelligence.
The ability to do calculus in a result of education, not intelligence.
You have offered ZERO evidence.
How many of these maths whizz-kids can track a deer in the forest, or skin a rabbit with a stone?

I am not referring to math whizz-kids only.
It is evident calculus is taught to many 15-17 kids throughout the world in maths classes, whereas calculus was confined to students in universities 200 years ago.
This is evident there is an increased in intelligence in average as compared to since 10,000 to 300 years ago.
Note I am not referring to calculus only but to the whole spectrum of human abilities.

In comparison with hunting and processing of animals, surely, the average person is more intelligent than those who were 10,000 years ago. The modern humans intelligent used more sophisticated methods of hunting and processing.

Another point is education is education in one perspective, but one can also be educated and train to be more intelligent, i.e. triggering the inherent intelligence capability within a person.
There are many training centers which train people how to be smarter, i.e. more intelligent.

[Sculptor]

Re progress in "intelligence" [intellect] for example,
15-17 years kids are studying and were able to do calculus since the last 50 years.
Were such 15-17 years old kids doing the calculus 10,000 years ago or 5000, or 1000, or 500 or 100 years ago?
The above is happening in so many aspects of human society.

How can you missed these evidences?

There was no such thing as calculus until the 17thC so you are not comparing like with like.
Since there are more 15-17yos now than at any time in history, so your observation is meaningless.
The ability do do calculus id not a measure of intelligence.
The ability to do calculus in a result of education, not intelligence.
You have offered ZERO evidence.
How many of these maths whizz-kids can track a deer in the forest, or skin a rabbit with a stone?

I am not referring to math whizz-kids only.
It is evident calculus is taught to many 15-17 kids throughout the world in maths classes, whereas calculus was confined to students in universities 200 years ago.

THis is not relevant.
The ability to do calculus is not a measure of intelligence.
It's just one skill
TO make your thesis you would have to prove that the same percentages of people would be less capable of the same feat 500 years ago. Unless you have a time machine, and a lot of time to spare.
Where is your evidence
?

This is evident there is an increased in intelligence in average as compared to since 10,000 to 300 years ago,

Did you even bother to read what I said?
There was no such thing as calculus 10,000 years ago, until Newton invented it there was not need for it.

Note I am not referring to calculus only but to the whole spectrum of human abilities.

For which you have furnished ZERO evience.

In comparison with hunting and processing of animals, surely, the average person is more intelligent than those who were 10,000 years ago. The modern humans intelligent used more sophisticated methods of hunting and processing.

"Surely", "surely". In other words. "I must be right" "I must be right".
Unless there is direct and specifically understood selective pressure, there there is no prospect of this. You've not even tried to define what you mean but intelligence.
Fact is the modern living has a way of preserving people of lower intelligence. Drones that think less about the world are likely to have more children than intelligent people who might think about having fewer children and have them later in life.
Have you considered this?

Another point is education is education in one perspective, but one can also be educated and train to be more intelligent, i.e. triggering the inherent intelligence capability within a person.
There are many training centers which train people how to be smarter, i.e. more intelligent.

No.
If intelligence means anything at all it means innate ability.
This can be given an outlet by many means, education is one such outlet, by living by your wits and fighting sabre tooted tigers is another; trapping game, scouting for food across the tundra, and building pits for mammoth to fall into are other outlets that encourage intelligence.
There have been several TV programs that have tested modern man's "abilities" in this respect - they tend to do very badly indeed, lacking the most basic practical skills, necessary to make fire for example. And this is not just about knowledge there also seems to be a total lack of imagination.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There was no such thing as calculus until the 17thC so you are not comparing like with like.
Since there are more 15-17yos now than at any time in history, so your observation is meaningless.
The ability do do calculus id not a measure of intelligence.
The ability to do calculus in a result of education, not intelligence.
You have offered ZERO evidence.
How many of these maths whizz-kids can track a deer in the forest, or skin a rabbit with a stone?

I am not referring to math whizz-kids only.
It is evident calculus is taught to many 15-17 kids throughout the world in maths classes, whereas calculus was confined to students in universities 200 years ago.

THis is not relevant.
The ability to do calculus is not a measure of intelligence.
It's just one skill
TO make your thesis you would have to prove that the same percentages of people would be less capable of the same feat 500 years ago. Unless you have a time machine, and a lot of time to spare.
Where is your evidence?

• I define "intelligence" as the ability to subsume whatever of the minor premise within a grounded major premise to produce sound conclusions mentally and in terms of physical actions.
  This is represented by a efficient neural algorithm to perform that function.
  
  Other than the main definition above, I agree with wiki's definition;
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

The ability to do calculus is definitely related to intelligence, i.e. mathematical intelligence in this case.
Note I mentioned 200 years ago.
I believe it is common knowledge, there are a greater % of kids and adults who has the ability to do calculus and solve calculus problems.
As I had stated calculus was confined to universities 200 years ago, but is not taught to 15-17 years old kid.

This is evident there is an increased in intelligence in average as compared to since 10,000 to 300 years ago,

Did you even bother to read what I said?
There was no such thing as calculus 10,000 years ago, until Newton invented it there was not need for it.

I was not referring to calculus on this point- see my point below;
I was referring to various types of intelligences in all aspects of humanity.

Note I am not referring to calculus only but to the whole spectrum of human abilities.

For which you have furnished ZERO evidence.

As I had stated it is common knowledge.
There are various intelligences, i.e.

• Verbal-linguistic intelligence refers to an individual's ability to analyze information and produce work that involves oral and written language, such as speeches, books, and emails.
  Logical-mathematical intelligence describes the ability to develop equations and proofs, make calculations, and solve abstract problems.
  Visual-spatial intelligence allows people to comprehend maps and other types of graphical information.
  Musical intelligence enables individuals to produce and make meaning of different types of sound.
  Naturalistic intelligence refers to the ability to identify and distinguish among different types of plants, animals, and weather formations found in the natural world.
  Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails using one's own body to create products or solve problems.
  Interpersonal intelligence reflects an ability to recognize and understand other people's moods, desires, motivations, and intentions.
  Intrapersonal intelligence refers to people's ability to recognize and assess those same characteristics within themselves.

In terms of average, the above intelligences has increased since 10,000, 5000, 200 years to the present.
Note the Flynn Effect.
https://www.123test.com/flynn-effect/

Thus it appears that people in 1950 were a lot less smart than they are now, that is if you define intelligence in IQ scores. How is that possible? According to the Flynn effect theory, the increase in IQ scores can in part be ascribed to improvements in education and better nutrition.

The exception may be Naturalistic intelligence because the majority of humans are now living in urban and modern cities.

In comparison with hunting and processing of animals, surely, the average person is more intelligent than those who were 10,000 years ago. The modern humans intelligent used more sophisticated methods of hunting and processing.

"Surely", "surely". In other words. "I must be right" "I must be right".
Unless there is direct and specifically understood selective pressure, there there is no prospect of this.
You've not even tried to define what you mean but intelligence.

Fact is the modern living has a way of preserving people of lower intelligence. Drones that think less about the world are likely to have more children than intelligent people who might think about having fewer children and have them later in life.
Have you considered this?

As I had stated above, modern living may have reduced the average Naturalistic intelligence but not the others.

Another point is education is education in one perspective, but one can also be educated and train to be more intelligent, i.e. triggering the inherent intelligence capability within a person.
There are many training centers which train people how to be smarter, i.e. more intelligent.

No.
If intelligence means anything at all it means innate ability.
This can be given an outlet by many means, education is one such outlet, by living by your wits and fighting sabre tooted tigers is another; trapping game, scouting for food across the tundra, and building pits for mammoth to fall into are other outlets that encourage intelligence.
There have been several TV programs that have tested modern man's "abilities" in this respect - they tend to do very badly indeed, lacking the most basic practical skills, necessary to make fire for example. And this is not just about knowledge there also seems to be a total lack of imagination.

There are two aspects to intelligence, i.e. nature and nurture.
What is innate is DNA wise all humans are programmed with the generic intelligence potential.
Some are born with a higher activated program, but some can be nurtured to increase their intelligence potential.

As for comparison with the hunter-gatherers group, I agree but this is merely comparing Naturalistic intelligence but not the other types of intelligences.

[Belinda]

Do you have researched evidence on the above?
It is more likely due to your prejudice and confirmation bias.

Yes, there are extremes from both side, but on average the left-wingers are the worst of the lot in term of rational discussions.

E.g. how can left-wingers like those from Antifa have high emotional intelligence.
From my personal experience with left-wingers, they are more "emotional" than being emotional intelligent.
In most cases, I have came across, left-wingers do not persist in rational discussions with arguments and reasons but they merely get emotional with all sort of outbursts or avoidances.

Note this emotional outburst and madness from Ben Affleck had while Bill Maher and Sam Harris were trying to argue rationally with facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

The evidence I bring to the table is political, especially present day British politics, and to a more limited extent American politics, including South America.
For instance the British Conservative Party neglected to lay up stores of personal protective equipment against an inevitable pandemic, and moreover starved the National Health Service of powers and money. The British Conservative party, while there are a few good men in it, tends to neglect welfare of the poor while steering profits from economic growth towards the already rich.

OK. You did not qualify earlier thus my earlier response.
I agree in this specific case, the UK government handling of the Covid19 pandemic is a great embarrassment.

I read some reports, there is a shift of the majority of the left to the center and what is representing the "left" at the present are the irrational and emotional "progressives."

On the other hand, the dominant right has also shifted to the center this is why many on the left since 5 years ago has converted to the right. The extreme right are not that dominant at present.

I said the Conservative Party depiberately neglects long term welfare of the not-rich and the downright poor. I did not say it is "an embarrassment" ! In my small way I represent the left, and am neither what you call "emotional" or "irrational".

The extreme right is too dominant for safety in America and elsewhere in the world. NB I am not saying communism is feasible.

[Belinda]

The evidence I bring to the table is political, especially present day British politics, and to a more limited extent American politics, including South America.
For instance the British Conservative Party neglected to lay up stores of personal protective equipment against an inevitable pandemic, and moreover starved the National Health Service of powers and money. The British Conservative party, while there are a few good men in it, tends to neglect welfare of the poor while steering profits from economic growth towards the already rich.

OK. You did not qualify earlier thus my earlier response.
I agree in this specific case, the UK government handling of the Covid19 pandemic is a great embarrassment.

I read some reports, there is a shift of the majority of the left to the center and what is representing the "left" at the present are the irrational and emotional "progressives."

On the other hand, the dominant right has also shifted to the center this is why many on the left since 5 years ago has converted to the right. The extreme right are not that dominant at present.

I said the Conservative Party depiberately neglects long term welfare of the not-rich and the downright poor. I did not say it is "an embarrassment" ! In my small way I represent the left, and am neither what you call "emotional" or "irrational".

The extreme right is too dominant for safety in America and elsewhere in the world. NB I am not saying communism is feasible although it has served China well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I said the Conservative Party depiberately neglects long term welfare of the not-rich and the downright poor. I did not say it is "an embarrassment" ! In my small way I represent the left, and am neither what you call "emotional" or "irrational".

The extreme right is too dominant for safety in America and elsewhere in the world. NB I am not saying communism is feasible.

It is very noticeable for many on the left,
the "left" had left them.

This is reflected in the "Walkaway Movement".
There are many ex-Democrats [left] who had left because the Democrats Party do not represent them anymore.

If you are neither emotional nor irrational, it is very obvious there is no place for you to be in what is presently the 'left'.

[Belinda]

I said the Conservative Party depiberately neglects long term welfare of the not-rich and the downright poor. I did not say it is "an embarrassment" ! In my small way I represent the left, and am neither what you call "emotional" or "irrational".

The extreme right is too dominant for safety in America and elsewhere in the world. NB I am not saying communism is feasible.

It is very noticeable for many on the left,
the "left" had left them.

This is reflected in the "Walkaway Movement".
There are many ex-Democrats [left] who had left because the Democrats Party do not represent them anymore.

If you are neither emotional nor irrational, it is very obvious there is no place for you to be in what is presently the 'left'.

Your social experience must be quite a lot different from mine. I note you are American. I know an American sociologist who told me Obama was to the political right of what we in the UK call a socialist.

[Sculptor]

I am not referring to math whizz-kids only.
It is evident calculus is taught to many 15-17 kids throughout the world in maths classes, whereas calculus was confined to students in universities 200 years ago.

THis is not relevant.
The ability to do calculus is not a measure of intelligence.
It's just one skill
TO make your thesis you would have to prove that the same percentages of people would be less capable of the same feat 500 years ago. Unless you have a time machine, and a lot of time to spare.
Where is your evidence?

• I define "intelligence" as the ability to subsume whatever of the minor premise within a grounded major premise to produce sound conclusions mentally and in terms of physical actions.
  This is represented by a efficient neural algorithm to perform that function.
  
  Other than the main definition above, I agree with wiki's definition;
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

The ability to do calculus is definitely related to intelligence, i.e. mathematical intelligence in this case.
Note I mentioned 200 years ago.
I believe it is common knowledge, there are a greater % of kids and adults who has the ability to do calculus and solve calculus problems.
As I had stated calculus was confined to universities 200 years ago, but is not taught to 15-17 years old kid.

This is evident there is an increased in intelligence in average as compared to since 10,000 to 300 years ago,

Did you even bother to read what I said?
There was no such thing as calculus 10,000 years ago, until Newton invented it there was not need for it.

I was not referring to calculus on this point- see my point below;
I was referring to various types of intelligences in all aspects of humanity.

Note I am not referring to calculus only but to the whole spectrum of human abilities.

For which you have furnished ZERO evidence.

As I had stated it is common knowledge.
There are various intelligences, i.e.

• Verbal-linguistic intelligence refers to an individual's ability to analyze information and produce work that involves oral and written language, such as speeches, books, and emails.
  Logical-mathematical intelligence describes the ability to develop equations and proofs, make calculations, and solve abstract problems.
  Visual-spatial intelligence allows people to comprehend maps and other types of graphical information.
  Musical intelligence enables individuals to produce and make meaning of different types of sound.
  Naturalistic intelligence refers to the ability to identify and distinguish among different types of plants, animals, and weather formations found in the natural world.
  Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails using one's own body to create products or solve problems.
  Interpersonal intelligence reflects an ability to recognize and understand other people's moods, desires, motivations, and intentions.
  Intrapersonal intelligence refers to people's ability to recognize and assess those same characteristics within themselves.

In terms of average, the above intelligences has increased since 10,000, 5000, 200 years to the present.
Note the Flynn Effect.
https://www.123test.com/flynn-effect/

Thus it appears that people in 1950 were a lot less smart than they are now, that is if you define intelligence in IQ scores. How is that possible? According to the Flynn effect theory, the increase in IQ scores can in part be ascribed to improvements in education and better nutrition.

The exception may be Naturalistic intelligence because the majority of humans are now living in urban and modern cities.

"Surely", "surely". In other words. "I must be right" "I must be right".
Unless there is direct and specifically understood selective pressure, there there is no prospect of this.
You've not even tried to define what you mean but intelligence.

Fact is the modern living has a way of preserving people of lower intelligence. Drones that think less about the world are likely to have more children than intelligent people who might think about having fewer children and have them later in life.
Have you considered this?

As I had stated above, modern living may have reduced the average Naturalistic intelligence but not the others.

Another point is education is education in one perspective, but one can also be educated and train to be more intelligent, i.e. triggering the inherent intelligence capability within a person.
There are many training centers which train people how to be smarter, i.e. more intelligent.

No.
If intelligence means anything at all it means innate ability.
This can be given an outlet by many means, education is one such outlet, by living by your wits and fighting sabre tooted tigers is another; trapping game, scouting for food across the tundra, and building pits for mammoth to fall into are other outlets that encourage intelligence.
There have been several TV programs that have tested modern man's "abilities" in this respect - they tend to do very badly indeed, lacking the most basic practical skills, necessary to make fire for example. And this is not just about knowledge there also seems to be a total lack of imagination.

There are two aspects to intelligence, i.e. nature and nurture.
What is innate is DNA wise all humans are programmed with the generic intelligence potential.
Some are born with a higher activated program, but some can be nurtured to increase their intelligence potential.

As for comparison with the hunter-gatherers group, I agree but this is merely comparing Naturalistic intelligence but not the other types of intelligences.

Standard IQ tests are a piss poor way of assessing intelligence, being very narrowly focused.
What we observe is not an increase in natural intelligence, but a cultural familiarity with the tests offered by the art of psychology.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 25911.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... er-measure
https://interestingengineering.com/the- ... f-iq-tests
https://www.ectutoring.com/problem-with-iq-tests

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated it is common knowledge.
There are various intelligences, i.e.

• Verbal-linguistic intelligence refers to an individual's ability to analyze information and produce work that involves oral and written language, such as speeches, books, and emails.
  Logical-mathematical intelligence describes the ability to develop equations and proofs, make calculations, and solve abstract problems.
  Visual-spatial intelligence allows people to comprehend maps and other types of graphical information.
  Musical intelligence enables individuals to produce and make meaning of different types of sound.
  Naturalistic intelligence refers to the ability to identify and distinguish among different types of plants, animals, and weather formations found in the natural world.
  Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails using one's own body to create products or solve problems.
  Interpersonal intelligence reflects an ability to recognize and understand other people's moods, desires, motivations, and intentions.
  Intrapersonal intelligence refers to people's ability to recognize and assess those same characteristics within themselves.

In terms of average, the above intelligences has increased since 10,000, 5000, 200 years to the present.
Note the Flynn Effect.
https://www.123test.com/flynn-effect/

Standard IQ tests are a piss poor way of assessing intelligence, being very narrowly focused.
What we observe is not an increase in natural intelligence, but a cultural familiarity with the tests offered by the art of psychology.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 25911.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... er-measure
https://interestingengineering.com/the- ... f-iq-tests
https://www.ectutoring.com/problem-with-iq-tests

You missed my point again;

Note the main point from the above articles;

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 25911.html

I did not insist but only stated IQ [Verbal-linguistic-mathematical intelligence] as one example [because the data are easily available] of the intelligence. I did not insist IQ as the ONLY measurement of intelligence.
That is why I had listed the various types of intelligence above and I believe there are more types of intelligences of human.

But the fact that there is trend in the increase of IQ over the ages can be extrapolated [hypothesized] the increase of the other intelligences [except the naturalistic intelligence] based on the theory that there is an algorithm within the brain that drives continual improvements as inferred from evidence.

I believe there is an obvious trend of increasing Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence in terms of sports performance since 776 BCE [first olympics] to the present.
Where there are data, I believe there would be a trend of increase for the other intelligences [except naturalistic since the majority don't live as hunter gathers anymore].

[Sculptor]

I believe there is an obvious trend of increasing Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence in terms of sports performance since 776 BCE [first olympics] to the present.
Where there are data, I believe there would be a trend of increase for the other intelligences [except naturalistic since the majority don't live as hunter gathers anymore].

It is quite painful to discuss this topic with a person lacking in basic education and rational sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe there is an obvious trend of increasing Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence in terms of sports performance since 776 BCE [first olympics] to the present.
Where there are data, I believe there would be a trend of increase for the other intelligences [except naturalistic since the majority don't live as hunter gathers anymore].

It is quite painful to discuss this topic with a person lacking in basic education and rational sense.

Any ignorant and stupid person can make the above excuses.

What count are valid and sound arguments which I had provided, where are yours?

[Sculptor]

I believe there is an obvious trend of increasing Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence in terms of sports performance since 776 BCE [first olympics] to the present.
Where there are data, I believe there would be a trend of increase for the other intelligences [except naturalistic since the majority don't live as hunter gathers anymore].

It is quite painful to discuss this topic with a person lacking in basic education and rational sense.

Any ignorant and stupid person can make the above excuses.

What count are valid and sound arguments which I had provided, where are yours?

You have no evidence to make any claims about "Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence" for the period you claim.
Any child could tell you that.