What evidence exists that IQ and civilization/ability to develop are related...

1) IQ is malleable (See )

2) Just because a group has a high average IQ means very little (Doesn't matter how smart your group is if poor as shit and malnourished).

Japanese/American investment gave them the tools to elevate themselves out of their squalid conditions, but it only worked because they weren't dumb as shit in the first place.

Intelligence is determined by three factors: genetics, stimuli and nutrition.
Regarding genetics, despite what /pol/tards claim, intelligence is pretty much the same amongst the populations.
The dumbest nations today are dumb because their populations can't eat properly and have no education, accompanied by their shitty cultures.

>Why is average IQ important?
because nations with a higher average IQ build better societies
i have an IQ of 130, i want to live amongst my own

>How can that idea be reconciled with them having far below average IQs?

Because IQ is 1) a shit concept to use to try to understand intelligence on a personal 2) an incredibly shit concept to use to try to understand intelligence on a community level.

What came first - the higher IQ or the society to allow for higher IQ?

>Common sense

Common sense is not proof.

> European populations contain a high enough number of gifted individuals to hold civilisation together.

Okay, let's think some more about this.

The Song Dynasty was beginning to have a bit of an industrial revolution in the 1100s. This was ruined by the Mongols. Why was this happening so early in a society that only had many average IQ people? Your point doesn't stand to history.

> but it only worked because they weren't dumb as shit in the first place.

Doesn't it seem simpler to assume that it's only because of the investment that they developed? Occam's razor and all. Once again, you're not really giving me a concrete reason to assume that this is the case, it seems far more likely to me that you're connecting two unrelated points.

>IQ is mismeasured.
It's this. And it also doesn't help that IQ is usually used by people in discussions like this that have no idea what it actually is, how it's measured, or how it's thought of in contemporary psychology.

In very basic terms, IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it only measures someone's ability to take an IQ test. And the tests are heavily based on the kinds of things people learn growing up in modern, industrialized societies. In general, people who grow up in underdeveloped areas do worse (not to mention the effects of things like access to education and nutrition can have on someone's ability to test. A good example of this is European immigrants who were immigrating to the US in the 1920s; many people from rural areas were turned away or classified as retarded because they did poorly on tests, and it was because they grow up poor farmers.

It isn't a good measure of intelligence, especially across entire populations or for comparative purposes, and using it for these kinds of discussion isn't something taken seriously in modern academia.

>What evidence exists that IQ and civilization/ability to develop are related? What evidence exists that current average IQs are reflective of the historical intelligence of people in certain areas?
Literally nothing. IQ is a meme.

For India, Indians are rather heterogeneous given that castes either marry within themselves or marry up. Theae genes do not get passed onto the illiterates and peasants.
unz.com/akarlin/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/

At some point in the future it will be possible to measure human mental capability.

As for Koreans vs Japanese or Iranians vs Portugese, I have no idea, but Africans seem to be less intelligent than Europeans.

retarded article, pure speculation and masturbation
i could write that shit in a Veeky Forums post and post it on /pol

Do enlighten us

>Greece has low AVERAGE IQ
>still produces thinkers

How is this not consistent? You can have low average IQ even uf you're top heavy.

Ancient Aksum/Ethiopia pre Oromo migrations is an entirely different people from the Ethiopia we know today. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries there were continual incursions by savage Negroes from the south, who were seeking new lands because of a food shortage in central Africa. Over time they overwhelmed the Ethiopians who had to defend themselves from the Ottomans at the same time, and Ethiopia fell into a dark age.

>us
no real proof of selection, no actual genes mentioned, assumptions, studies from the 80s, extrapolation from non-iq tests, loosely quantifying factors doesn't account for "horizontal" variation
here's your(plural) dots

Why Greece rather than elsewhere in Europe? Are other countries not Top-Heavy in terms of IQ, and Greece is special? Why does it make more sense to you to assume that Greece has some special property with it's IQ scores rather than arguing that Greece's influence was a result of it being the first area in Europe with agriculture/large-scale civilization and was connected to the already large trade networks of the East?

source, and do we know the IQ of these invaders vs the IQ of native Ethiopians?

>lands settled by Portuguese colonists are smartest.

>rather than arguing that Greece's influence was a result of it being the first area in Europe with agriculture/large-scale civilization and was connected to the already large trade networks of the East?

Source? Do you have a peer reviewed source for that?

You're still confusing average with elite.

first civilization in europe wasn't greece

The fact is that even most third world countries today have living conditions that are better than the most glittering ancient civilisations. The Caliphate, Greece, and India were advanced for their time. But their time was long, long ago. As for Ethiopia, it might have been advanced by Africa's standards but compared to Europe or Asia it's always been a backwater. You definitely can run a thriving medieval society with a population that has an average IQ of 80. The real question is why you would think it strange that a culture that did well in antiquity would be able to transfer those skills to the present day.

Also, there's every reason to believe that a population's IQ can change quite quickly through selective breeding and migration. Case in point, the US: in 1960 it was over 90% white. Due to immigration, and just as importantly the higher birth rates of non-whites, in less than 20 years whites will be a minority. Presumably then it will have the average IQ of a non-white population.

Why shouldn't this pattern have been repeated in the past? A multitude of barbarian peoples - Serbs, Bulgars, Huns, Turks - swept over Greece in the dark ages. The middle east has been undergoing steady arabisation since the 6th century, replacing the settled population with arab pastoralists. Ethiopia expanded rapidly, so modern Ethiopia is composed of many different ethnic groups, only a small percentage of which are descended from ancient Ethopians. And India's population has exploded in the last half century, but asymmetrically - the division in birth rates between the poor people who have no access to contraception and the elite is even starker there. It's not so much that the people with the intelligence to create Hindu philosophy and art don't still exist: it's just that they now comprise a lower percentage of the population. Hence, on average, IQs are lower.

But no ones likes the idea that humans can be selectively bred, so these answers are ignored.

Ethiopia wasnt colonised because of Christianity. Thats why it wasnt divided by Britain and France after WWII.

Agriculture spread out of the Levant into Europe via Anatolia then Greece, no?

What other states existed in Europe before Mycenaean and Minoans? They weren't quite Greek by they laid the foundations for the Greek cultures that followed.

people have found golden artifacts, walls, settlements, signs of agriculture on the balkans - varna culture

I believe all men and women are created equal and the difference in iq is simply a symptom of not getting the same chances in life.

The western world got the silver spoon in history, relatively protected, great lands, well fed with free time to develop and forward technology and science.

It looks like africa is not the right place for that but we can share and we can help our less fortunate brothers and sisters.

hispanics can do as well as whites, genetically speaking they are a mixture of spaniards(majority) and some native americans(basically asians)

bulgars invented an alphabet, built large cities with thick walls, had literature and a civilzation strong enough to fight ERE long before nords did anything notable

cant be bothered to refute more of your masturbation there

T. gets picked last in gym class

>relatively protected, great lands, well fed with free time to develop and forward technology and science.

So, Sub-Saharan Africa?

>Sub-Saharan Africa

Are you kidding? The Congo is one of the most inhospitable (owing to disease and wildlife) and densely forested areas on Earth.

>relatively protected
Ever heard of the Bantu migrations? Doesn't sound very protected to me.

>Great Lands

Bad soil, jungle, and diseases are great lands?

>well fed with free time to develop and forward technology

This was a shitty premise to begin with. People don't innovate when they don't need to, or, in the case of many areas in Sub-Saharan Africa, when they're hunter-gatherers.

not to mention 1 to 2 seasons and crap soil due to rains

The concept of IQ is bullshit. It can change based on nutrition, upbringing, etc. Jews, Indians, and the Chinese are stereotyped to have higher IQ's because their culture values education. You'll notice immigrant Indian and Chinese tend to have the highest IQ's compared to Indians and Chinese in their homelands.

Bingo.

the way IQ is measured has nothing to do with objectivity. it's more of a test of how familiar you are with puzzles and how willing you are to complete them. pretty silly to stretch that into a way to measure intelligence, especially when tests are arbitrary and culturally biased in the first place.

regardless, the question your asking is retarded because the information is static and readily available. put an IQ map next to a map that shows the cradles of civilization and see for yourself.

Not to mention it can change based on a lot of factors. I can be a 120 if I was ate something specific, felt good, slept well. However, I can fall to a 110 if I didn't eat as much, was stressed out, etc.

>Also, there's every reason to believe that a population's IQ can change quite quickly through selective breeding and migration. Case in point, the US: in 1960 it was over 90% white. Due to immigration, and just as importantly the higher birth rates of non-whites, in less than 20 years whites will be a minority. Presumably then it will have the average IQ of a non-white population.

There will still be tens if not hundreds of millions of white, Asian, high achieving Hispanic & black Americans to keep the USA prosperous, to fill the important posts

This is why African countries with 5% white population have functioning stock markets and some semblance of the rule of law

>Are you kidding? The Congo is one of the most inhospitable (owing to disease and wildlife) and densely forested areas on Earth.

Who could grow anything in this barren wasteland

The Canadians have it easy by comparison

>the way IQ is measured has nothing to do with objectivity. it's more of a test of how familiar you are with puzzles and how willing you are to complete them.

What about the reaction time tests, which show Asian children reacting quickest, then Europeans, then Africans last. These are very simple tests.

>THE CONGO
>C O N G O

IS THAT THE FUCKING CONGO?

Short response because I'm in a social environment, but:
1) IQ isn't the holy grail. It undoubtedly checks for something and that something clearly has a high genetic correlation as evidenced by twin studies and backed up by observations in animal intelligence as related to certain gene clusters. But I isn't perfect and absolutely is influenced VERY strongly by shit like, you know, they were starved as children.
2) Your post's idea of what borders and peoples are is kind of silly. Ancient Greeks aren't Greeks today. The "Middle Easterners" you describe the innovated math and science were almost all Persian and maybe half Muslim. Basically all historical Indian accomplishments were done by northerners who conquered the south. Plus they're pretty impoverished and malnourished which has a clear effect.

Here you go

Whites would do OK in the Congo, what do you think

Is there no potential, is it hopeless as a place for human habitation?

it could easily be that asians are better at doing what they're told or culturally feel more of a need to perform well than other people. I'm not saying the results don't match up with actual intelligence in humans, maybe they do, but the way testing is performed is arbitrary and subjective by definition.

reaction time tests i don't even think are used in modern iq tests.

>twin studies
Twins gestate in the same womb, senpai. If the mom used drugs, was malnourished herself, or diseased, that would certainly have a huge impact. No shit both kids would have lower IQs.

>Basically all historical Indian accomplishments were done by northerners who conquered the south.

Look at the HDI in the North vs. the South. I always find that funny. Why is it that the south is richer and more developed if the Indo-Europeans in the North are smarter? Come on now.

They arent culturally biased, You fat retard.
>display 9x9 square with some parts colored black
>ask what the result would be after a rotation
There is no cultural bias There, unless You havent discovered squares.

One's intelligence can change based on a lot of factors. That's not a good argument

Less enriched by islamic inbred admixture.

Twin studies aren't the end all, but they show a high correlation such that you'd have to argue that the biggest contributing factor to variable intelligence is developmentin uterus.

>Indian HDI
The differences are not remarkable, but we're talking about achievements made hundreds and even thousands of years ago by influential minorities.

>we're talking about achievements made hundreds and even thousands of years ago by influential minorities.
To clarify, my point there is that the populations of all groups involved have changed dramatically. Dramatic population shifts take very little time, as if there wasn't plenty of time.

> but they show a high correlation such that you'd have to argue that the biggest contributing factor to variable intelligence is developmentin uterus.

Given that disease appears to factor in heavily in IQ, that's an assumption I'd be willing to make.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000572

>The differences are not remarkable

.5-.75 is the difference between an African country and Iran. That's a massive difference.

The Malabar coast has some of the oldest Muslim communities in India owing to the establishment of merchant colonies since the 8th century.

Weaken body = weaken mind.
Also there is factor that diseases, natural catastrophes or social unrest can disrupt or destroy knowledge.
Simply if wise men or craftsman dies before he can teach someone else his knowledge will disappear.
Not even mentioning viruses like Zika that can alter next generations.

Why bother getting caught up in IQ?

India could turn any European Nation's IQ to N/A with pic related.

We measure civilizations based on achievements, not how smart the average rice/wheat farmer may or may not have been. A 105 IQ truck driver is not any better than an 80 IQ one. Maybe they can write some poetry in between stops.

You know the Oromos are about 90% assimilated Amharas, who are themselves mostly assimilated Agaws, who come from the same population group as the original Oromos, and the same goes for Tigrayans. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

India can't do shit to Europe my man

Also having produced influential thinkers millenia ago isn't really very indicative of modern anything.

you might have a cultural disposition to not giving a fuck about answering correctly, not caring to do it quickly even if you could, etc. it's arbitrary and subjective. coming from someone who genetically should be near the top, it's a bunch of crap.

There is almost no native agriculture in Central Africa that is on par with say, West Africa (they domesticated an African species of rice, along with some other grains). Besides the tsetse fly fucking things ul, the soil is too shit for anything that isn't yams.

The only Africans who had an easy time in the Congo are the actual natives, the Pygmies, and the people from the Great Lakes.

That user thinks the slightly "blacker" Oromo people ruined Ethiopia.