Race and IQ ARE RELATED.

There are four major races in the world (based on craniofacial anthropology): Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid.

While we are probably all ultimately from Africa, the multiregional hypothesis suggests that mankind further evolved into these four distinct races. To those who haven't read my numerous other posts that explain this:

Caucasoid - Nordics, Slavs, Serbs, Hispanics, Semites, Persians, Pasthuns, Indians
Mongoloid - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Malay, Thai, possibly Native Americans
Negroid - Sub Saharan Africans
Australoid - Australian aborigines

Now, consider that the Mongoloid race has its origin in the mountainnous terrain of China and Mongolia. Winters in such mountains are harsh and require intelligence to survive. Natural selection occurs: dumb people are wiped out and only the high-IQ people survive to reproduce. The average IQ of the Mongoloid race is 100+

The Caucasoid race might have homage in the Caucasus mountains, or anywhere in Europe, or the Hindu Kush mountains - which would give them some natural selection as well. Average IQ is about 90-100 (I know that there are numerous "studies" that "prove" that the average Indian/South Asian IQ is about 85, however, these tests do not exclude the population living in poverty and malnutrition. South Asian IQs are on par with European IQs.)

The Negroid race has for a long time been largely confined to Sub Saharan Africa. Winter is barely heard of there - so it is fitting that the average IQ of black America is about 80-85.

The Australoid race has the lowest average IQ in the world, at about 60. This suggests an origin close to the equator.

 

Why would dumb people be wiped out in the mountains? They would have family/other of the same species which would look out for them? If animals can learn to adapt to living the mountains at low IQS why not 'dumb' humans.

I agree the Australoid race has the lowest average IQ in the world but can you explain the equator point? Thanks.

 

I see you made a thread because no one would read your post in the other topic, but I'll have you know that I did

I don't think it necessarily correlates to our times now. I think it depends on the culture which one was born into. I'm sure that this "race and iq relation" theory makes sense, but it depends on current practices- which were probably formulated from previous times as you mentioned. It could honestly go either way, but it's slightly more likely that Darwin's theory occurred because that's mainly how cultures survived then.

 

Once their parents are dead what happens? And animals 'learn' to adapt the same way people do - they either can and pass it on, or don't.

No winter = no natural selection = no cleansing of low IQ people.

 

So in theory, your idea of iq progression in races in through the season winter?

 

Pretty much. I'm hardly the first person to have come up with this theory, though.

 

Although that may true at first, I believe IQ gain is made through choices. The Australoids life path is different from other ones and they choose to hunt/gather in the last 2000 years rather than unravel science to improve their lives. They believe their lives are satisfactory and see no need to improve it. I believe the other races see problems with their living style and work to improve it thus improving their science/technology.

 

Not really - Australoids in Southern India live a different lifestyle than Australoids in Indonesia, who live a different lifestyle than Australoids in Australia.

 

SMR - God made a mistake, you should have been from the Mongoloid race.

sidenote: aap msn per mujse baath kyu nhai kaar teh ho?!

 

Have the different "races" been separated long enough for any type of changes to occur between them? The conditions are different yes, but I'm skeptical that there could be any major iq difference taking place over that relatively short period of time.

 

We can see there are HUGE differences. For example when the British colonised New Zealand, the Maori natives of New Zealand lived a tribal lifestyle with clubs as their primary weapons. These stood no chance versus the disciplined formation of the british musketeers. We can see which race is more intelligent in the art of warfare/science/technology through this example.

 

Not just winte r- look at how hard it is to live in south America, find food, shelter, water ect.

Now, lets think of living in Alaska.

Now, which would you have to think more often on a day to day basis to survive?

Obviously harder enviroments causes natural selecton.

"survival of the fittest"

 

Short?

Humans have been here for how many years?

 

It is foolish to doubt the diversity of these four races.

They are genetically distinct enough to have craniofacial features that set them into one of four races - and therefore, genetically distinct enough to have different IQ ranges.

 

I agree with SMR on the natural selection part, and how it killed off the "dumb" people and left more smart people in those particular races and the countries they live in. However, I highly doubt winter was the only factor in the selection process. Other causes like sickness and plain stupidity must have taken place. Example: Two people walk near a cliff. Person A wants to jump off, but Person B has a bad feeling about it. A jumps off, but B doesn't. Thus leaving the more intelligent one to mate with another intelligent person.
You can also swap the cliff for a poisonous fruit or something.

 

Yeah, I guess those are factors too. The point is that the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races have had more natural selection than the other two - and it shows - Which two races of the four have accomplished the most in the modern world?

 

You are bludgeoning the ideals of natural selection, by bringing it into to the micro scale. There has been no evidence to suggest that intelligence is even such a strong selection pressure (observing case studies in other animals). Rather, the commanlity is to deviate in production and size.

Plus, living in the Desert isn't an easy place to live either neccesarily, neither is Asia such an inhabitable place to live. Unless evidence surfaces that equatorial latitude has a greater influence than education environment, and cultural preference...

 

And yet craniofacial features correlate so poorly to IQ.

 

You're forgetting that humans are the only animals who act based on judgment and not on instinct. Doesn't that mean that humans with better judgment (which correlates to intelligence) is a factor in human selection?

Neither the Australoid or Negroid races are native to a desert habitat. The Sahara is the natural home of the Semites (Jews and Arabs), who are Caucasoid. As for Asia - Mongoloid and Caucasoid races are from Eurasia, Australoid and Negroid races are not.

 

The transition to human domination was not sudden. It seems more like a speculation based on retrospection, not a true cause-effect examination. Correlation and causation must also be distinguished.

Certainly, intelligence is a factor. I have a strong background in biology - one of the main themes was the magnitude of the selection pressure in evolution, on both the macro and micro scale. For example, even though sickle cell anemia is a highly antagonistic disease, the prevalence of it greatly increases with a greater malarial selection pressure.

Because of the relatively short existence of the human species, and even shorter time period in which humans have "separated" into races, you are suggesting that intelligence is a VERY strong selection pressure... which I think is questionable.

Yet another little problem I have with this theory... the distinction of the 4 races are NOT environmentally decided, and the correlation to environment is only moderate. Correlating intelligence to environement, then environment to race, limits the accuracy of the statements being made.