MEDIEVAL IQ

Considering that they couldn't even fucking read yes

>>3221845
No, moron. Knowledge =/= IQ.

>>3221845
No. Intellectual capacity is around the same, people weren't dumb. They just didn't have information available and ignored some out of cultural ties.
In the ancient times there were people calculating the circumference of the Earth based on shadows and trigonometry as well as people who were dumb but physically capable, today we have people expanding on thousands of years of previous knowledge and people who think the Earth is flat or that communism can work

Okay, but what do you think their score would be?

>>3221886
I'm pretty sure the average peasant was fucking dumb due to poor nutrition and socio-economic factors. With the introduction of things like iodized salt the average intelligence increased by one standard deviation.

>>3221845
They would SEEM that way, lacking information that we consider very basic today, but their knowledge of crops would be nearly encyclopedic.

>>3221845
Medieval pepe were a bunch of 60- IQ retards who actually believed in g-d but then the enoightment happene and made 90% of them non-retarded

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>3221845
Im pretty sure life not being for granted would require people to be more intelligent to survive in general. Actually i think the consensus is that the average prehistorical homo sapiens-sapiens had to be aware of so many factors to survive that he probably was more intelligent than the average contemporary dude who has everything sorted out since a couple generations already.

>>3221845
Flynn effect would suggest they actually were pretty low IQ

>>3222378
This is only true for neolithic hunter gatherers. A time were you had to fill multiple, often changing roles and you had to adapt to any slight change in circumstance. In agrerian society, people specialised and usually had one job for their entire life. Life was relatively secure so there was no need to adapt to circumstance often. They would be entirely practical thinking with little capability of abstract thought.

Hunter gatherers might have been intelligent but agrerians were fucking retards by every modern standard.

>>3221902
It's a meme that peasants were malnourished, what sense does it make that you're a lord that takes all the food from his workers?

Also I'd like to see you run a farm without electricity

File: IMG_1357.jpg (285KB, 960x895px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 960x895px

how dare u

They would probably be illiterate and unfamiliar with things we take for granted today, yes
But to believe that you're somehow inherently smarter than a shit-shovelling peasant because you're a "modern man" is giving yourself way too much credit

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/13/american-iqs-in-1900-averaged-67-points

FLYNN EFFECT BOIS

Seriously though, I don't understand how this could be.

You know those giants Newton stood on the shoulders of? They were medieval scientists and scholars.

>>3221845

Yes, he would lack many basic survival skills such as not walking into traffic and not murdering peasants who look at you cock-eyed. He could no doubt learn some of these but would be forever hindered in ever taking a full role within modern society because of the countless cultural tropes and "common knowledge" that he does not share.

>>3221845
OP would.

>>3221863
I speak a language that most of its speakers can't read. It hasn't stopped anything.

>>3221845
Could YOU run a farm and know when which crop to plant and harvest and know which plant is good for what? Well a peasant knew all of that.

>>3222704
>People are bad at things they have no experiance with.
Stop the fucking presses

>>3222704
>know when which crop to plant and harvest and know which plant is good for what?

Yes, because I have a library card and an internet box.

>>3221845
Quite likely as he wasn´t taught reading or essential mathematics from early on.

>>3222546
It's hardly a meme. Average height increased considerably over the course of industrial revolution.

>>3222752
Not having the optimal dietary options available <> malnourished

>>3222789

Yes actually that is literally the definition.

>>3222797
Let me go step-by-step and highlight the important words for you.

Optimal diet: o p t i m a l
versus
malnutrition: lack of proper nutrition, p r o p e r

Have you learned something?

>>3222815
>HURR

What a dopey cunt.

>>3221845
yes, their IQ would be low.
but not their g-factor

>>3222823
Do you need me to provide definitions for you or is funny greentexting where you're at now?

>>3221886
>Earth is flat or that communism can work
These two things piss me off so god damn much.

>>3222721
And pray tell, who did the people who wrote down this knowledge get it from? Not only are you a pseud, you're a spoilt brat who doesn't know the true value of knowledge.

>>3221886
>communism can work
Nazbol can work

Medieval people were ignorant, not stupid, which is not the same thing.

There are plenty of African and Amazonian tribes today that are ignorant as well, but that doesn't mean they are stupid. They still know what plants to forage for food, which are poisonous, and how to hunt for animals, and they probably know what plants have medicinal properties too.

>>3222378
by that logic, animals would be smarter than humans

>>3222752
Medieval skeletons tend to be taller than 18th & 19th century skeletons. They had a better diet as there were fewer people, who were generally more rural.

File: shiggy.jpg (306KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 750x750px

>>3221845
>IQ is an accurate measurement of intelligence
When will this meme end?

>>3221845
Low class people were malnourished and a large portion of their diet consisted of alcohol from the time they were fetuses. They also couldn't read, and suffered countless maladies growing up. Considering as recently as 1920 Ireland's average IQ was in the mid 80s... I'd say so.

Nobility on the other hand would have been a few inches taller on average as well as better educated, though in the dark ages still a good portion were illiterate, even Charlemagne himself.

There would have been a visible, tangible difference between people of different classes though, which really elucidates how society could have been so stratified.

>>3221845
>had no formal education whatsoever
>mostly illiterate
>indoctrinated their entire lives by religious dogma

I don't know OP, you tell me.

IQ is a combination of pattern recognition, education, and cultural knowledge.
They would almost universally score low due to being uneducated and not having a shared culture with us, same reason tribals score low nowadays.

>>3221845
Considering they could probably neither read nor speak our language, probably. It would take time for them not to act like morons.

>>3221845
Nope. If you plop them down in a school they'll have the same aptitude for learning as everyone else.

>>3221845
Everone acts as most logical as their context allows them. In a thousand years historians will concider us literally retarded for our ridiculous ideals and beliefs.

>>3221845
Yes. They wouldn't be able to solve the basic 1+1 math. Nor understand the basic premises of logic that are prevalent in today's world and so on.

Even african people who are considered retarded by today's standard atleast know some basic math and logic.

>>3225680
>they wouldn't be able to solve basic 1+1 math
Sounds like you're more retarded than they are, anon. They at least had a grasp of basic addition and subtraction, considering that their entire lives revolved around delivering x bushels of grain to their feudal lord.

>>3221845
Probably around 70-80, yes: they were dumber because they had a worse diet than today's westerners, it's old news, IQ has risen like 20 points at least since the early XXth century

>>3221918
Am I on /leftypol/ or am I on /his/?

>>3225690
I think he meant that medieval people wouldn't comprehend abstract numbers.

They would understand 1+1 in the context of giving grain to their lord but they wouldn't have a concept of addition and subtraction outside of purely material circumstances. Back then, 1+1 could ONLY be understand in the context of real objects but now it's understood as an abstract logical truth outside the physical realm. That's what allows us to solve complex problems because we can use things like hypotheticals and abstractions to understand mundane problems more deeply. A mediavel peasant simply didn't think this way because they weren't challenged with complex and otherworldly problems like the modern person is exposed to every day simply by reading the news.

>>3221845
They'd probably be able to kick your ass.

>>3225690
Most of the medieval people didn't get basic k-12 education. They don't know any mathematical substances. At best, the nobles/rich/smart had some limited k-5 level math. The genius like Euler/others were very very rare.

So in those times, Euler would've been seen as gods. He is still seen as a mathematical genius even today, but back then, it the difference in ability must be so huge. Yet only those who knew bit of advance math back then would appreciate his genius. To the ordinary people who didnt know any basic math, he would simply be a "smart guy".

>>3222752
I seriously question the logical reasoning of anyone who believes that mediaeval people were drooling retards while their descendants have somehow matured into enlightened supermen. They may not have had access to the same level of information that we do today, but they were any less capable of reasoning. Illiterate people have a different way of processing information than we do, much of what they knew would have been encoded in stories facilitated by a vastly superior working memory. There's nothing to suggest that the development of intelligence has been anything other than dysgenic over the course of settled civilisation, I would not be surprised to learn that the average Classical Athenian would be considered a genius by today's standards.

To address the most common argument, the idea that they were perpetually malnourished is a complete myth that originates with the industrial revolution when people flocked to the cities and sanitation subsequently plummeted. Those conditions are projected back onto mediaeval people by myopic observers, no historian takes it seriously. As has been stated previously in this thread mediaeval skeletons are not significantly different from those of today.
Excepting times of famine, which were uncommon, people in agrarian societies have typically had a varied and sufficient diet.

>>3221845
No. They'd probably be a bit more intelligent than the average today, for not getting to autopilot through life via technology, especially the nobility, merchant and religious classes.

I swear, /his/'s credibility is ruined for the "thank gxd I live in the age of reason lol skydaddy everyone was retarded before google" neckbearded meming. It's worse than /pol/, sometimes.

>>3224322
Charlemagne illiterate? M8 get your facts straight. He spearheaded a huge education movement through Europe. Trace the manuscript history of De Doctrina Christiana.

>>3226880
>3226880
>No. They'd probably be a bit more intelligent than the average today,

Fuck off, you fucking retard, it's been proven that they were dumber because of a poorer diet and much less intellectuals stimuli

>>3225927
ahahah epic where did le strong men go?

Go fuck yourself, clueless tard

>>3226880
>Reason people don't want to live in the past is due to google
>Not modern medicine and plumbing
If you want to shit on contemporarians, at least be honest about it.

>>3226677
They were objectively dumber for having a much worse diet during development years, much more ridden with diseases, much poorer or in some cases zero education or intellectual stimuli, they had a lower IQ, not so much that they were drooling retards but they were certainly dumber on average

>>3221902
>socio-economic
>affecting intelligence
Whatever socio economic status you're at is a result of your intelligence, not the other way around.

>>3228761
What a sad little retard that you are

>>3224114
t. Nigger

>people think they can measure the human mind
Naive

>>3226880
People today are exposed to tons of intellectual stimuli from their birth.

We have to think about abstract mathematics and complex political issues from around the entire globe while peasants only needed to know how to count bushels and only know what happened in their own local communities. The jobs peasants had didn't require brains, only muscle.

I'm sure those high in the social heirachy were intelligent but that's not what's being discussed right now.

Considering that that standard was shifted within the past 50 years to exclude the average negro from being labeled legally retarded, I would say it's unlikely.

File: 1.jpg (579KB, 1247x855px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1247x855px

>>3221845
They would be like current Africans (maybe a little smarter)

The op definitely is.

If you took a medieval baby and raised it in modern times there would be no difference, but a medieval adult person would have a lower IQ due to a lack of education (using your brain trains it) and malnourishment (a bad diet while growing up means the brain will not be as big as it could be).

>>3226677
>the average Classical Athenian would be considered a genius by today's standards.

This is true

>>3221845
Yes, wh*te people were fucking retarded while Islamic countries were centres of multiculturalism and tolerance.