Hypercompetent 'Average' Citizens

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Genetics are not destiny, but they are the foundation through which people build their lives.

They are *A* foundation. You're sounding an awful lot like a eugenicist, though I hope I'm interpreting that incorrectly.

As you yourself said, plenty of people obtain fame and wealth not due to their own capabilities, but due to the circumstances into which they were born. In that case, genetics isn't *a* foundation (let along *the* foundation).

Similarly, in what's often being called the "slot-machine economy," many people may have equivalent abilities in, say, computer programming, but only one app catches fire and soars to the top rankings in the online store, despite its competitors being potentially just as good if not better.

Genetics are not destiny. Capability is not destiny. There's an uncomfortable amount of both connections and crap-shoot involved in the path to success. And genetic engineering won't have much effect on those characteristics of our society and economy.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Interestingly, I've also heard before that Neanderthals are believed to have been stronger, more robust, and actually more intelligent than their Cro Magnon counterparts, but their higher food costs (higher ST and IQ, and probably higher HT, all call for more calories, but GURPS doesn't typically concern itself with that) allowed their lesser cousins to outcompete them.

Some researchers state that a reason for the success of the Cro Magnon was that they were able to better communicate then the Neandertal, because as far as I´ve heard there are a little bit other structures in the throat, namely in the area around the vocal cords which hampers forming precise words, but that´s only one theorie.
Physically they where more able then their counterpart, there is evidence that they survived wounds that would kill a Cro Magnon outright. The joints for example have been too more robust. I say once a TV Docu in which a scientist stated that you could throw them out of a window 5 m high and they would only walk away. A bit exagerated but basically true. The size of the brain was larger, but does nothing say about intelligence.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Willy

Don´t mix relative and absolute strength.

I wasn't, that why I said "specific force generation in the muscles in question"

Originally Posted by Willy

The relative muscle force may be lower, but since there are a lot of muscles, the absolute strengh is far higher.

There aren't that many more muscles to compensate in a way that leads to "a far higher absolute strength". (it's all pretty much in the link, which goes through several ways in which these muscles had affected capabilities they belie their abstract size)

Originally Posted by Willy

I´ve once seen a documentation in which a 9 years? or even younger boy did exercices a adult woman couldn´t do. Or to be precise most adult man also. Seeing a child lifting heavy weights seemingly effortlessly is a bit shocking.

Would have to see the documentation to comment really

Originally Posted by Willy

But I have a question I couldn´t find out about this how big is the relative endurnce? A weightlifter is very strong, but if he has to run a mile fast he will collapse, Is this the case here too ?

From the link

"Thus, Mstn−/− muscle does not seem to benefit from the high tetanic force generation to be expected of glycolytic fibers, and the mitochondrial depletion would suggest increased fatigability and exercise intolerance, a mark of derangement rather than orderly change in the differentiation process."

(but this is just one piece of work on Mice here)

Also it depends one what weight lifter were talking about, the lighter weight categories tend to have quite good cardio, the bigger lifters and body builders in general not so much. Partly because it's just less of a sought after goal for them. Ultimately though some body types are not well suited for endurance running due to the distribution of mass. i.e. there's reason why long distance runners look like they do,

[Pbuckley]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yes, genetics are typically more about predispositions than absolute results, but then that's what something like the Eve template AlexanderHowl posted in the other thread represents - that +1 IQ means the racial average is IQ 11, that is, such "human+" individuals are more predisposed to high intelligence than mundane humans, not that they're always smarter than every mundane human.



I believe I've read that latter bit as well. Interestingly, I've also heard before that Neanderthals are believed to have been stronger, more robust, and actually more intelligent than their Cro Magnon counterparts, but their higher food costs (higher ST and IQ, and probably higher HT, all call for more calories, but GURPS doesn't typically concern itself with that) allowed their lesser cousins to outcompete them.

The Idea that Neanderthals might be smarter than humans is based on brain size. However this appears not to be the case as the parts of the Brian that are larger correspond to motor functions. I.E. Agility, and Dexterity. However they are unlikely to have been any dumber than us.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Would have to see the documentation to comment really

Sorry but I can´t help you, because it was a german production a few years ago I watched just to kill time. I remember the facts but not even the title. Nevertheless I´m the opinion that we write about the same medical condition, there aren´t many that let look boys like He Man.

Here is the WIKI link about this condition and after reading it I´m absolutely sure it´s the same condition, because the reporter said it was earlier known from bovines, same in the WIKI article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosta...le_hypertrophy

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Also it depends one what weight lifter were talking about, the lighter weight categories tend to have quite good cardio, the bigger lifters and body builders in general not so much. Partly because it's just less of a sought after goal for them. Ultimately though some body types are not well suited for endurance running due to the distribution of mass. i.e. there's reason why long distance runners look like they do,

I was writing about bodybuilders and the heavier classes, problems with the mitochondrians normally mean little endurance.

Originally Posted by Pbuckley

The Idea that Neanderthals might be smarter than humans is based on brain size. However this appears not to be the case as the parts of the Brian that are larger correspond to motor functions. I.E. Agility, and Dexterity. However they are unlikely to have been any dumber than us.

I´m also the opinin that they were not dumber then ouerselfs, I think it were adaptions to the living conditions to make them fitter to survive i.e. hunting skills the refering brain areas would fit that pattern.

[dcarson]

Or we get very good at CRISPR and retro viruses and just do edits in place on everyone. Repeat if needed for a flaw. Or this years fashion.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Willy

Sorry but I can´t help you, because it was a german production a few years ago I watched just to kill time. I remember the facts but not even the title. Nevertheless I´m the opinion that we write about the same medical condition, there aren´t many that let look boys like He Man.

Here is the WIKI link about this condition and after reading it I´m absolutely sure it´s the same condition, because the reporter said it was earlier known from bovines, same in the WIKI article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myosta...le_hypertrophy.

Fair, enough, It agree it sounds like it might reference teh same condition. But equally an anecdote about a 9 year lifting heavier than usually expected weight doesn't really support the claim: "the absolute strength is far higher" in abstract.

Originally Posted by Willy

I was writing about bodybuilders and the heavier classes, problems with the mitochondrians normally mean little endurance.
.

It can do (on with regards to mitochondirians again check the article I linked to)

but there also more basic reasons why body builders don't make good endurance runners.

1). they don't train for it, they don't need long distance running endurance to attain the goals they do train long and hard for.

2). long distance endurance running is partly about moving the least amount of mass about that you can get away with and still be able to run long distances. And the body shapes that tend to be at the most efficient point of trade off also tend to be the polar opposite of a body builder body shapes. Even heavily muscled legs are not of much use to endurance runners since they don't give much direct benefit for endurance running, while still being more mass to move about. They are of more use for sprinters who can benefit from heavier muscled legs more. And it's no surprise that middle distance runners tend to look somewhat in the middle.

[Willy]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Fair, enough, It agree it sounds like it might reference teh same condition. But equally an anecdote about a 9 year lifting heavier than usually expected weight doesn't really support the claim: "the absolute strength is far higher" in abstract.

Please don´t think I want to have the last word, but the medic standing stated a boy at this age normally shouldn´t be able to do any of the exercices. One fact caught my eyes especially, you know chin ups the one armed variant gripping your wrist?
That one did it and it looked like a breeze. Among lifting and so on. The boy was 9 at most, don´t remember the exact age. Waist high of the doctor, maybe a inch or two more, and no I don´t know the length of the doctor.
About the thing with absolute and relative strengh, I have not enough data to proove it, I was just guessing from what I´ve seen.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

It can do (on with regards to mitochondirians again check the article I linked to)

but there also more basic reasons why body builders don't make good endurance runners.

1). they don't train for it, they don't need long distance running endurance to attain the goals they do train long and hard for.

2). long distance endurance running is partly about moving the least amount of mass about that you can get away with and still be able to run long distances. And the body shapes that tend to be at the most efficient point of trade off also tend to be the polar opposite of a body builder body shapes. Even heavily muscled legs are not of much use to endurance runners since they don't give much direct benefit for endurance running, while still being more mass to move about. They are of more use for sprinters who can benefit from heavier muscled legs more. And it's no surprise that middle distance runners tend to look somewhat in the middle.

I know this from experience very well, in my youth I was doing a lot of running as a competive sport, ca 15+ h of training a week, only county level nothing serious.
My question was, because of a less effective mitochondrial system, what is important for endurance, if there is a drawback like: Can lift a car but passes out when he needs to run a mile. Because none of the exercises I´ve seen were related to endurance.