Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective

[Agrippa]

Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective
Donald I. Templer and Hiroko Arikawa
The impetus for our study was the contention of both Lynn [Lynn, R. (1991). Race differences in intelligence: A global perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 31, 255–296] and Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; Rushton, J. P. (1997). Race, intelligence, and the brain: The errors and omissions of the revised edition of S.J. Gould's the mismeasure of man. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 169–180; Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, evolution, and behavior. A life history perspective (3rd edition). Port Huron: Charles Darwin Research Institute] that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs than persons in warmer climates. We correlated mean IQ of 129 countries with per capita income, skin color, and winter and summer temperatures, conceptualizing skin color as a multigenerational reflection of climate. The highest correlations were − 0.92 (rho = − 0.91) for skin color, − 0.71 (rho = − 0.75) for mean high winter temperature, − 0.61 (rho = − 0.68) for mean low winter temperature, and 0.63 (rho = 0.74) for real gross domestic product per capita. The correlations with population of country controlled for are almost identical. Our findings provide strong support for the observation of Lynn and of Rushton that persons in colder climates tend to have higher IQs. These findings could also be viewed as congruent with, although not providing unequivocal evidence for, the contention that higher intelligence evolves in colder climates. The finding of higher IQ in Eurasians than Africans could also be viewed as congruent with the position of Diamond (1997) that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e8ac7af0fcee75
found on:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/12...-pages-of.html

[Svyatoslav]

The finding of higher IQ in Eurasians than Africans could also be viewed as congruent with the position of Diamond (1997) that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis.

Jared Diamond's thesis is an absurdity: in typical leftist fashion, hiving off any accountability for man's condition from man himself and instead attributing it to geography and idea diffusion (or the lack thereof).

How he can ignore the effects of tens of thousands of years of divergent selective histories on different peoples -- and still claim to have discovered the ultimate thematic linchpin of human history -- is beyond me...

[Agrippa]

I can just agree with you but still he has some good points, which, if combined with other ideas and approaches, are very valuable.
Furthermore his environmental view is not just correct to some degree, but is even of importance if looking at the divergent biological evolution you spoke of. So his theories shouldnt be dismissed, other factors and resulting biological consequences for human variation should be just thought with. Because the "highways of knowledge" where usually under high selective pressure and had obviously more and faster "genetic sweeps" as well.

Not to mention the fact I always pointed out, that higher available energy levels and nutrient foods were often preconditions for higher development and their lower level a reason for partial or full stagnation and even degeneration - both by modification and selective pressure, since the modifications usually point in the direction of the selection in a given environment. We can see that over and over again - almost everywhere, and here, again, Diamond had a point, but he just ignored or at least neglected the biological, evolutionary consequences.

[Strengthandhonour]

I think it's interesting, but for example, how come Greece was more advanced than let's say..Denmark at one point in history? Greece is warmer than Denmark

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I think it's interesting, but for example, how come Greece was more advanced than let's say..Denmark at one point in history? Greece is warmer than Denmark

I think that's the exact point, environmental pressure + sustenance = result.
Greece has always been warmer than Denmark, and even if the arable lands aren't as many they are clearly more fertile.
So we have: good weather + easy access to food = high cultural development, stagnation of body development in the progressive sense

on the other hand:

bad/not adequate weather + shortage (or hard to get) food = higher body adaptation, stagnation in cultural development.

I think i'm seeing this right.... huh?

[Svyatoslav]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I can just agree with you but still he has some good points, which, if combined with other ideas and approaches, are very valuable.
Furthermore his environmental view is not just correct to some degree, but is even of importance if looking at the divergent biological evolution you spoke of. So his theories shouldnt be dismissed, other factors and resulting biological consequences for human variation should be just thought with. Because the "highways of knowledge" where usually under high selective pressure and had obviously more and faster "genetic sweeps" as well.

Not to mention the fact I always pointed out, that higher available energy levels and nutrient foods were often preconditions for higher development and their lower level a reason for partial or full stagnation and even degeneration - both by modification and selective pressure, since the modifications usually point in the direction of the selection in a given environment. We can see that over and over again - almost everywhere, and here, again, Diamond had a point, but he just ignored or at least neglected the biological, evolutionary consequences.

Absolutely. Certainly, the ideas of tractable crop suites and idea diffusion -- on their own -- are tenable. It's just that his thesis is Procrustean, and ignores the formative events 30-40,000 years before the advent of agriculture.

Once you closely read Guns, Germs, and Steel, you can't help but notice the number of contradictions and inconsistencies that pepper his thinking. He conveniently ignores the entire issue of genetics, effectively waving his hand and claiming he has not seen anything "convincing". Considering he states, overtly in the foreward, that his motive for writing the book was to remove the racist basis of history, his thinking needs to be scrutinized carefully, regardless of how intuitively agreeable it seems.

Politics won him the Pulitzer, not incisive thinking.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I think it's interesting, but for example, how come Greece was more advanced than let's say..Denmark at one point in history? Greece is warmer than Denmark

Obviously some of the most important racial developments are older than the Neolithics, but with the Neolithics, certain areas were sooner "civilised" and advantageous, I will try to point to some reasons later - we are speaking about general Europid and partly Mongolid as well, characteristics.
What was good for biological-racial progression (Ice Age, instable climate, mobile life, group selection-constant small scale wars) must not be good for cultural progression - even on the contrary, its almost incompatible. Furthermore I would emphasise the food-nutrition point and the general selective pressure both if its about biological and cultural evolution. F.e. if in a warm river valley various groups would fight for controlling the area, and in this constant fights special skills and good genetic preconditions are crucial, those which finally occupy that territory, at the end, after the Ice Age, might be relatively progressive and both biologically and culturally advanced, if compared with hunters gatherers living in nowhere, without strong group selection, even if they had to be more intelligent than the ancestors of the river groups when they both were Hunters and Gatherers.
But finally, the most important developments took place before and during the Ice Age, just some, though not unimportant ones sometimes, afterwards. Climate is just one factor, an important, but not the only one.
Intraspecific selection, both individual and collective, was in my opinion more important at least from Homo erectus on - AT LEAST, probably much earlier.
So if there are important areas, for which many groups fight, we can assume that both cultural and biological evolution will be faster - at least as long as the winners win biologically (more descendents) as well. So in such cases we must look what features the people have which occupy and area, not hows the area is looking alone. And Greece was inhabited by rather progressive Europids - if the biological potential is there, to occupy more favourable areas is more important than being somewhat more evolved - because especially since state organisation came up and mass societies of farmers, sheer numbers could be crucial - just the elite HAS to be on a high level, though on the long run its more advantageous if the average is high as well.

What we have to distinguish is cultural from biological developments. The crucial, for the pure mental, intellectual developments, time was during the Ice Age - Neolithics lived biologically mostly from what was achieved during the Ice Age in Eurasia - just certain further developments, associated with the new lifestyle, new selective regime and the leptomorphisation because of the warmer climate and the two other reasons began, but the most important steps were already made.

We had often more progressive types in more unfavourable environments, finally they even lost sometimes, not because they were biologically inferior, but it was a numbers game. Those rather advanced forms which had the luck to stay in the best start positions after the Ice Age made it, at least for a certain time. F.e. we see a Mediterranoid expansion soon after Ice Age, but again a Nordid expansion after the Nordids adapted themselves to the new selective regime (leptomorphisation, farmers-combined economy-herders and warlike-group oriented). In that time of high selection, both Nordids and Mediterranids ruled in most areas, others were just "companions", in fact thats mostly true until now.

The Ice Age produced basic forms, basic types, but then something new came in, the Neolithic revolution, which changed a lot and brought up a new form of competition, more based on the ability to win in group selection and adapt culture than to survive against natural adversities. But what this new forms used, was what their ancestors mostly (not fully) achieved already during the Ice Age and before.

Crucial for the success was the ability to hold areas which were fertile, could feed masses but were at the same time demanding, had still a certain selective pressure, especially in the intraspecific selection (humans vs. humans). Groups which managed that at least for certain times in Eurasia were Nordids (partly fluvial, coastal regions, woodlands-open grasslands), Mediterranids (coastal, fluvial mostly), Orientalids (oases, plateaus), Indids (Northern valleys for herder warriors, fluvials more for farmers) Sinids (again both valleys and fluvials), Tungids (steppes, plateaus), Taurids (plateaus, hills, valleys and mountains) were at the beginning more specialised to certain environments (herders of the higher regions, urbanised forms later - especially Armenid "proper"). They were the major driving forces in history, made up the core of the most important civilisations and developments.
Crucial for their success was not only that they had certain abilities, but they managed to hold an area rich enough to feed armies, not just armies in general, but farmer and herder masses as well - sheer numbers.
Usually for herders wide spaces, steppes obviously, for farmers river valleys.

Coming back to the original question, we have to say that regions like Scandinavia had various problems:
-First, they were further away from the centre of developments, which was, especially at the beginning, the Near East - you can see that best if looking at the Bronze Age and Iron Age dates in the North. They often showed great skills, great potential by working with what they had, but they finally didnt had what they needed, that changed mainly when they adopted metals and metal production themselves, its typical that the times of the great Nordid expansion were those times, in which new skill and techniques were necessary and available for the North, but still mobile group oriented people had a significant advantage - Bronze and Iron Age.
-Secondly to use the full potential of the Northern land, further technical and social developments were necessary, some came just in the middle ages (heavy plough, horse collar, village organisation etc.). Until then the North could produce biologically advanced types, even an advanced culture in some respects, but no great city civilisation in the same way as the South. For that technological innovations were needed, as well as a state organisation, both had to come from the South rather and couldnt develop that good in situ.
-The North was more sensitive if its about climate changes. Its typical that Nordids came up (in two senses of the word, first marching North, secondly evolving) in a warmer time, but there were many fluctuations, usually we see an increasing population in the North as long as the climate was favourable, great instability and more migrations, expansions southwards from the North when the climate changed to the worse again.
Eickstedt described that very good, how long there was free space in the North and how various groups marched there, melted together, were selected and finally marched in their new form back afterwards, especially in climatically critical times.
-The Mediterranean Sea was a great transport network, the North had nothing comparable, especially not with established contacts to the centres of the early civilisation, mainly Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Greek land was probably not as fertile as the North, but the North lacked the techniques as I said and Greece was at least fertile enough - not to mention that trade and warfare were quite important for Greece from earlist times on.
Interestingly, after the North adopted metallurgy, he was quite dominant in certain areas in crucial times. Helladics bought swords in the North, got mercenaries and goods from their, but were finally conquered by Dorians. Italics themselves are people coming from the North. But like so often, the biological potential developed in one region, but spread to another and there it could use much more from its potential. Because in the Northern, rather anarchic and group fighting area - which was perfect for certain biological developments for a long time especially in late Neolithic, Bronze and early Iron Age, a higher stable state civilisations had much more problems to rise than in certain more stable farmer societies. But again if they turned into farmers, they often lost their cultural and biological quality partly decreased and other elements, tendencies increased (f.e. decadent beliefs, customs, physical reduction-infantilisation of the mass, strong "infights" with the elite killing itself etc.) if there were no measures, and usually there were none, or at least no efficient ones, something I tried to explain in various threads.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Curious:

Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984, page 307, Table 5) analyzed 20,000 crania and found sex-combined brain cases differed by continental area. Excluding Caucasoid areas of Asia (e.g., India) and Africa (e.g., Egypt), 19 East Asian populations averaged 1,415 cm3 (SD = 51), 10 European groups averaged 1,362 cm3 (SD = 35) and 9 African groups averaged 1,268 cm3 (SD = 85).
http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/rushtxt.htm

In contrast, Beals et al. (1984, p. 309) found a correlation of 0.62 (p=0.00001) between latitude and cranial capacity in samples worldwide and reported that each degree of latitude was associated with an increase of 2.5 cm³ in cranial volume.
http://www.answers.com/topic/latitude

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Originally Posted by Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski

Curious:

Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984, page 307, Table 5) analyzed 20,000 crania and found sex-combined brain cases differed by continental area. Excluding Caucasoid areas of Asia (e.g., India) and Africa (e.g., Egypt), 19 East Asian populations averaged 1,415 cm3 (SD = 51), 10 European groups averaged 1,362 cm3 (SD = 35) and 9 African groups averaged 1,268 cm3 (SD = 85).
http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/rushtxt.htm

In contrast, Beals et al. (1984, p. 309) found a correlation of 0.62 (p=0.00001) between latitude and cranial capacity in samples worldwide and reported that each degree of latitude was associated with an increase of 2.5 cm³ in cranial volume.
http://www.answers.com/topic/latitude

Dialing in the standard deviations, the Caucasoid and East Asian samples overlap. Also, "sex combined" means that the greater sexual dimorphism among Caucasians may mask some information. For instance, a males only study might be quite different or even reverse the differences in the Caucasoid-East Asian volume relationship.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff

For instance, a males only study might be quite different or even reverse the differences in the Caucasoid-East Asian volume relationship.

Are you aware of such a study?