Is it possible that Enviroment led to retardation among its people

its called an IQ test. What aspect of intelligence isn't covered by an IQ test?

so its best for the scientific community to leave it untouched but people can make all the scientific claims about it they want as long as they're politically left / denying the relevance or existence of race? Why should scientific inquiry be controlled/determined by political interests? Who the fuck made you god?

>retarded people don't independently discover how to smelt steel.

how do you know? what exactly is so brilliant about digging things out of the ground and smelting them together in a fire?

Where did I say any of that in my post?

IQ test was designed to measure the retardation of mentally disabled children, to this day there is still no scientific evidence that it's an accurate measure of intelligence

>If this is the case, then I'd have to wonder why Northern Europeans were living in the relative squalor they were compared to their Mediterranean counterparts, for so many centuries.

They weren't. Medterraneans were the ones living in squalor in towns and cities.

>to this day there is still no scientific evidence that it's an accurate measure of intelligence
>denying reality this hard

so why is it a widely used measure of intelligence? why is it our best measure of intelligence? People want to deny the utility of IQ tests for political reasons only. Why do less intelligent people have lower IQ's then more intelligent people?

>what exactly is so brilliant about digging things out of the ground and smelting them together in a fire?

I don't know. If it was so simple, why did it take Northern Europeans so long to figure out how to make it?

How am I denying reality? Do you understand the concept of scientific evidence?

>If this is the case, then I'd have to wonder why Northern Europeans were living in the relative squalor they were compared to their Mediterranean counterparts, for so many centuries.

have you considered that all caucasians evolved in harsh environments during the ice age? Northern europe was not neccessarily a harsher environment then the mediterranean even during the bronze age

you're just making shit up, obviously there is scientific evidence for IQ tests or we wouldn't use them

Damn, look at all that squalor. Truly the nordic master race was much more intelligent for not bothering with such useless developments.

>have you considered that all caucasians evolved in harsh environments during the ice age?
Considering that Caucasoids can be found as far flung as Britain to Pakistan, I have a hard time believing that they all evolved so uniformly due to the Ice Age. France is a harsher place than Egypt, especially during the Ice Age.

you think everyone in rome lived in buildings like that? fucking lol. I doubt any of that is even living quarters.

>Truly the nordic master race was much more intelligent for not bothering with such useless developments.

You're the one with the chip on your shoulder about a nordic master race not me. Obviously such things were useless to northern europeans at the time. How the fuck were they supposed to build them without a big enough labour force?

I can show you a picture of giant housing project buildings, I can show you pictures of blocks and suburbs of them, does that mean the people living there aren't living in squalor? If the buildings look nice does that change the living conditions of the poor inside them?

>obviously there is scientific evidence for IQ tests or we wouldn't use them
kek
there's no scientific evidence for psychology or psychanalysis actually working yet they're both widespread
[spoiler] they're pseudo-sciences[/spoiler]
perhaps try informing yourself on what is scientifically sound and what isn't

however, go ahead and try to find me some credible scientific evidence for IQ tests being a legitimate measure of intelligence, I'm sure you'll have a fun time

>france is a harsher place then egypt

Egypt is a fucking stinking hot desert, you think a green, heavily vegetated land with a mild climate like france is harsher then the fucking desert?

>
there's no scientific evidence for psychology or psychanalysis actually working yet they're both widespread

No sceintific evidence for psychology? And you're placing all psychology on the same level as psychoanalyis? Are you aware that psychiatry uses IQ tests?

>however, go ahead and try to find me some credible scientific evidence for IQ tests being a legitimate measure of intelligence, I'm sure you'll have a fun time

Why does stephen hawking have such a high IQ? Is it because he's intelligent?

>you think everyone in rome lived in buildings like that?
No, but I sure know no Swede lived like that.
>How the fuck were they supposed to build them without a big enough labour force?
If they'd actually made any significant agricultural developments, they'd have the required population for such feats.

How are you even bothering to have this conversation with me when the literal alphabet you're typing all this out on wasn't even created by Northern Europeans?

>cites single example as proof
kek

ok I see you don't understand the concept of proof so I'll stop feeding (You)s now

An anthropologist did a study long ago and I don't remember the full story, we learnt it in anthro as an example of ethics and stuff. Anyway he did a study of intelligence or something and found d that, in general, Africans had an IQ of 70-90 whilst 100 is considered average IQ.

>green, heavily vegetated land
Not in the Ice Age.

What is the ice age. France is now milder than Egypt, but at the time it wasn't.

In accordance with the Flynn Effect, an IQ of 80 today is close to an IQ of 100 a century ago. In short, if you think anyone is retarded for having an IQ ranging from 70-90, you think that the average Brit from 1910 was retarded.

>all this northern euro butthurt

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of greasy, dark-skinned pedophiles inventing literally everything.

>No, but I sure know no Swede lived like that.

So what? What does it have to do with squalor?

>If they'd actually made any significant agricultural developments, they'd have the required population for such feats.

So where would they get the labor force for deforestation?

>How are you even bothering to have this conversation with me when the literal alphabet you're typing all this out on wasn't even created by Northern Europeans?

how the fuck is that relevant you peice of shit? You're just a fucking idiot or a troll, plain and simple. And clearly a racist.

its an example your obnoxious fuckhead, why do all our most intelligent people have high IQ's? Why do stupid fucking cunts like you have low IQ's?

you said france is harsher then egypt, especially in the ice age. You did not say only in the ice age.

Implying they were dark skinned.
Ancient Greeks were white. Romans were white. And they didn't do shit after antiquity.

and what IQ do you think africans had in 1910?

I'm indian actually

>Greeks and Romans were white

You misspelled hawhiiite, my man.

>And they didn't do shit after antiquity.

Yeah, it's like their societies were crippled once a ton of Euro savages invaded their land and used their temples and theaters as toilets. Imagine that, my assmad Nordic friend.

Still, even today temps go down to -10 in France in the winter. Just last week, it was -19 in Metz France. Whereas Egypt never has snow, nothing ever freezes etc. The Nile Delta is the most fertile land on earth.

>So what? What does it have to do with squalor?
Every Swede was living in squalor. Romans may have had varying levels of life style, but their peak lifestyle was incomparable to the peak lifestyle of a Swede, and their troughs were comparable.
>So where would they get the labor force for deforestation?
I dunno. India's has quite a lot of forests, but the Maurya managed to find a way to prosper in spite of that. Why didn't the Northern Europeans?
>how the fuck is that relevant you peice of shit?
uhh, because it's your culture?
>And clearly a racist
kek

Implying I'm Nordic.
The best is a mix of Nordic and Mediterranean. Like the French, Brits and Germans.
Also, implying all the middle Eastern mud cultures did not have a hand in the fall of Rome.

/pol/ please go, you're out of your league.

Your whole point was about how Caucasoids grew more intelligent due to the harsh climates they endured in the Ice Age. By that logic the Caucasoids in France should have come out as far superior to the Caucasoids living in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India.

Also, even after the Ice Age Egypt continues to be a much better place than France. The Nile was the most hospitable river in the ancient world. Egypt was called a "breadbasket" for a reason. No matter the time period, Egypt shows itself to be the objectively easier place to live.

>Your whole point was about how Caucasoids grew more intelligent due to the harsh climates they endured in the Ice Age.

That wasn't my argument, but all Caucasoids evolved in cold environments.

Mesopatamians came from central asia...dravidians and indo-european indians originate in central asia...others originated in east asia.

>Also, even after the Ice Age Egypt continues to be a much better place than France. The Nile was the most hospitable river in the ancient world. Egypt was called a "breadbasket" for a reason. No matter the time period, Egypt shows itself to be the objectively easier place to live.

So you're telling me Egypt is an easier place to live but you're also asking me why the people there had a superior civilisation? Probably because Egypt is in the mediterranean giving them good access to trade, and has the fertile nile delta

Even if they had IQs of 80 in 1910 it still wouldn't support your idea all that well, because it still wouldn't change the fact that modern day Africans are as intelligent as early 20th century Europeans. It might prove an average racial difference in intelligence, sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere as significant as you're trying to make it out to be. If a modern day African is as smart as a early 20th century Brit, where is your logic behind claiming that they're universally retarded to the point that it justifies the massive apparent difference in advancement? You still haven't managed to resolve this lapse in your claims.

>Every Swede was living in squalor.

Maybe our definitions and ideas of squalor are different, to me squalor is living in an urban slum. Not living in a beautiful open meadow near a stream on a farmstead with your extended family with the nearest neighbhours miles away.

There were also wealthier people in germanic society who had palace complexes, more cattle and nicer stuff

if there is a genetic basis to IQ, then we should expect to see exactly what you're talking about. A disparity between different genetic groups even though both of their IQ's increase over time.

Also, we're only talking about average IQ. What about the europeans in 1910 who were geniuses or highly intelligent

>all Caucasoids evolved in cold environments
I've already established that they didn't. Arabia and Egypt are not cold climates, and the people who currently inhabit those areas and inhabited them 12,000 years ago were Caucasoids.
>Mesopatamians came from central asia
Would you care to prove that? Sumerian isn't an Indo-European language.
>dravidians and indo-european indians originate in central asia
True, but not all Caucasoids are descended from these groups. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that Caucasoids=Aryan/Indo-European. The Caucasian race evolved over 50,000 years ago. The migration of Indo-Europeans happened mostly circa 2000 BC. The Dravidians and Indo-Europeans and the peoples they conquered were both Caucasoids, because Caucasoids have existed for tens of thousands of years.
>So you're telling me Egypt is an easier place to live but you're also asking me why the people there had a superior civilisation? Probably because Egypt is in the mediterranean giving them good access to trade, and has the fertile nile delta
So which is it? Is Egypt an easier place to live or a harder place to live. Either way your theory doesn't hold up to historic scrutiny.

I have no arguments so I'll call him a poltard that'll shut him up!

Grow up

>Maybe our definitions and ideas of squalor are different, to me squalor is living in an urban slum. Not living in a beautiful open meadow near a stream on a farmstead with your extended family with the nearest neighbhours miles away
Then why is it that all the important advancements in the world have been created by people who didn't live under these conditions?
>There were also wealthier people in germanic society who had palace complexes, more cattle and nicer stuff
And their lives paled in comparison to those of the wealthy Romans and Greeks, so I don't know what you're trying to say here.

You said that the French brits and germans are mixes of Nordic and med. There's no need to argue with you, you clearly are out of your depth.

I'm trying to say that they weren't living in squalor. I don't see why not making as many advancements as other societies automatically means you're living in squalor. Aboriginal people weren't living in squalor originally, when they moved into slums and cities alongside anglo-australians they were.

>A disparity between different genetic groups even though both of their IQ's increase over time.

Problem is, the Flynn Effect only starts happening in the 20th century. It's not a constant trend throughout human history and is a very recent phenomenon.
>What about the europeans in 1910 who were geniuses or highly intelligent
Outliers don't really support your point though. They're exceptional. If this disparity is between the races is true and significant, then the average IQ ought to be a far better signifier of your point than the odd genius here and there.

>HURR ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH MY AUTISTIC THEORIES IS A LIBERAL
Fuck off back to /pol/, retard

>I've already established that they didn't. Arabia and Egypt are not cold climates, and the people who currently inhabit those areas and inhabited them 12,000 years ago were Caucasoids.

So why are Caucasoid features adaptations to cold weather? Not everybody in Egypt was caucasoid, the caucasians came from the levant. The levant was forested back then like europe.

>Would you care to prove that? Sumerian isn't an Indo-European language.

Neither are most central asian languages...holy shit you are ignorant as fuck.

>he Caucasian race evolved over 50,000 years ago.

50,000 years ago is longer then 12,000 years ago

>True, but not all Caucasoids are descended from these groups

I never said they did...you brought up india and other countries, so I told you where those populations came from

>So which is it? Is Egypt an easier place to live or a harder place to live. Either way your theory doesn't hold up to historic scrutiny.

Where do most australains live? In the red center or on the coast?

But they are...he just left out alpines

Fine. Let's say that our defintions of squalor are highly different and let that be that. I'd still like you to explain how you think the life you described is somehow better when it hasn't amounted to 99% of the advancements that humankind has achieved in the past 10,000 years. People who perpetually live like the ancient Northern Europeans don't get you to the moon.

>Problem is, the Flynn Effect only starts happening in the 20th century. It's not a constant trend throughout human history and is a very recent phenomenon.

thats when we started measuring IQ...

Its like this, western Europe did not invent the wheel, did not domesticate the horse, did not make the first steel, they learned this from trade with other cultures, it took a 1000 years for bronce to get from mesopotamia to northern germany. Yet many people consider the isolated native american civilizations to be idiots for not having those things europe got from others.

>mid eastern mud cultures

You mean the people who invented monotheism? Yes, I know Euros are mighty mad about that since they'd prefer to have continued worshipping their burly personifications of rape and pillage, my sphincter-clenching compatriot.

Clearly its better then living in below sub-standard housing in a slum. I never claimed anything else.

Interesting, can you post some genetic data that supports the idea that brits have a significant mix of Nordic and Mediterranean blood?

we're talking about phenotypes

>phenotypes
>literally lighter skin=smarter

Is that why you never leave your house during daytime?

if you're talking about phenotypes to say "mix of nordic and mediterranean" makes no sense at all, why would you claim a particular phenotype comes from others from a different region?

So what are the French o alleged wise one, if not a mix of celts romans and Germanics? I never said it was a 50-50 mix.

What are the Syrian emperors etc.
Rome succumbed to imported degeneracy far before adopting Christianity.

Saxons -> Germanic + Viking raids
Romans -> French -> Normands
Plus the romans mixed with anglos as well.

maybe look into what phenotypes are, its an important part of all animal biology. Denying phenotypes means denying nigerians look different to koreans look different to the french

Its not that it came from that region, its that its best represented and most common in that region.

Also the Nordid phenotype is the Mediterranean phenotype depigmented, so even that originates from the vicinity of the Mediterranean

>Plus the romans mixed with anglos as well.

No they didnt. The anglos only arrived in significant numbers after the romans left the british isles

>So why are Caucasoid features adaptations to cold weather?
Because of the Ice Age. Most everywhere was colder than today.
>the caucasians came from the levant
No they didn't. Carelton Coon himself didn't even think that.
>Neither are most central asian languages
Wait, what? Did you just say that PIE wasn't a language that developed in central asia? When the PIE people themselves originated in Central Asia? Where the fuck have you been learning your anthropology.
>50,000 years ago is longer then 12,000 years ago
Do you actually think that the Caucasoid race only evolved 12,000 years ago? Lord help you if you do.
>I never said they did...you brought up india and other countries, so I told you where those populations came from
Their populations have come from a shitload of places. All those areas have undergone wave after wave of migration from other regions. Most of which were by Caucasoids past 40,000 BC.
>Where do most australains live? In the red center or on the coast?
On the coast, because it's an easier place to live.

so why did northern europeans and people who lived like them for even longer (russians) get us to the moon? kek. You're a silly billy

>Because of the Ice Age. Most everywhere was colder than today.

So why are the other phenotypes adapted to hot weather or even colder weather?

Just because the romans/vikings were there doesn't mean they left a lasting genetic impact. This goes for the French, and brits.

We started measuring IQ earlier. The Flynn Effect has been seen since 1930, but IQ tests have been a things since the 1910s. Look up any of the hypotheses concerning the possible source of the Flynn Effect. Nobody who deals with IQ considers the Flynn Effect a natural trend for all of human history.

They only got to the moon once they stopped living like how they'd been living and started living like other people.

Because even in the Ice Age, not everywhere was uniformly cold. Some places were still colder than others just like some places are still colder than others today.

>No they didn't. Carelton Coon himself didn't even think that.

Carlton coon was around a long time ago. Generally we tend to make more discoveries about things as time goes on

>Wait, what? Did you just say that PIE wasn't a language that developed in central asia?

No, I didn't I said:
>>Neither are most central asian languages

You are definitely underage b&

>Do you actually think that the Caucasoid race only evolved 12,000 years ago? Lord help you if you do.

Didn't you claim that Egyptians didn't evolve in a cold environment because they were in egypt 12,000 years ago?

>Their populations have come from a shitload of places

yes..like I said before. But we're talking specifically about caucasoids

>On the coast, because it's an easier place to live.

so that answers your question then.

The people the romans mixed with didn't disappear when the anglos came. Anglos did not replace the inhabitants, they mixed as well.

Vikings invaded and stayed in Brittany for example.
It has a great genetic impact, the same way we still have 4% Neanderthal DNA.

so you agree that caucasoids evolved to a moderatley cold environemnt? Compared to where east asians and africans evolved

>number of isaac newtons = intelligent of geneological grouping
little arbitrary don't you think? thousands of factors are being ignored here.

wrong, there's people still living like that today, and even in the 1950's people were living pretty much exactly how ancient germanic people lived

>The people the romans mixed with didn't disappear when the anglos came. Anglos did not replace the inhabitants, they mixed as well.

They both mixed and displaced. The romans didn't mix with the britons on any significant scale, the romans were the administrators and the army and not the masses.

Surprisingly, given that they invaded and occupied large parts of the British Isles for four centuries, there is little genetic trace of the Romans.

Similarly, the Vikings may have a reputation for rape and pillage but the genetic evidence shows they did not have enough children with the locals for their Danish DNA to be present today.

The Anglo-Saxons, in contrast, did leave a genetic legacy, with about 20 per cent of the DNA of many English people coming from the invaders who arrived 1,600 years ago.

There was probably never a PIE language. Indo-european languages originate in the vicinity of central asia, south asia and the middle east. Europeans developed their own indo-european languages from the influence of greek, italic and illyrian people on their own pre-indo-european languages. Also slavic languages originate from iranian languages = the pre-ie languages of eastern europe

* iranian languages + pre-ie eastern european languages

>Generally we tend to make more discoveries about things as time goes on
Where did you read that the current consensus on the origin place of the Caucasian race was the Levant?
>No, I didn't I said:
Forgive me, I read what you wrote incorrectly. Still, I don't see how you've come to the idea that Sumerians were a central Asian people, when we don't even know the root of their language's origin.
>Didn't you claim that Egyptians didn't evolve in a cold environment because they were in egypt 12,000 years ago?
No, I claimed that the people living in Egypt 12,000 years ago were Caucasoids. Which they were. My major point here is that Caucasoids exist over numerous different areas of non uniform climate, by the standards of the Ice Age, as well as the standards of today.
>But we're talking specifically about caucasoids
So was I, as I mentioned that most of those migrations post 40,000 BC would have been of Caucasoid people. Different varieties of Caucasoid people, but still Caucasoids.
>so that answers your question then
It doesn't really answer any question I had, but it doesn't really prove your point either. I honestly have no idea why you asked it at all.

>so you agree that caucasoids evolved to a moderatley cold environemnt? Compared to where east asians and africans evolved
SSA Africans? Yes. East Asians? No. I never denied that Caucasians evolved in a comparatively colder environment than SSA Africans. I denied that the climate they evolved in was uniformly cold.

>Where did you read that the current consensus on the origin place of the Caucasian race was the Levant?

Ancient Egyptian people originate from two main population groups, levantine and african/nilotic. Caucasian race does not originate in the levant as far as we know, although the levant is a source of R1b and is still present there today

What are you even talking about. The people who developed the technology to get to the moon were not living like ancient germanic people.

>Forgive me, I read what you wrote incorrectly. Still, I don't see how you've come to the idea that Sumerians were a central Asian people, when we don't even know the root of their language's origin.

Its only a theory AFAIK. There is one caucasian race in particular beleived to be close relatives to ancient sumerians

>It doesn't really answer any question I had, but it doesn't really prove your point either. I honestly have no idea why you asked it at all.

You asked whether Egypt is an easier place to live then france. The nile delta was easier to live then france, the desert probably about the same

Didn't east asians evolve in colder environments then europeans/caucasians?

They mixed a lot more with the French. And then Brits were conquered by the French.

Your image shows French, if you break French down, you will find even more Mediterranean blood.
Wales has less Nordic heritage than northern Scotland, who would have thought.

And anyway my point never was that the mix was somehow 50-50. I just said that all the significant European peoples, are not 100% Nordic nor 100% Mediterranean. And so comparing Nordics and Mediterraneans is meaningless as roughly all western Europeans have at least a part of their DNA from either.

>There was probably never a PIE language
All languages are derived from some kind of root. If there are Indo-European languages, then there is a PIE language by logical extension.

>People who perpetually live like the ancient Northern Europeans don't get you to the moon.

Northern, western, and eastern europeans perpetually lived argrarian semi-nomadic, subsistence farming lifestyles. If this were a guarantee they were some genetically inferior race incapable of developing advanced technology, then their descendants wouldn't have developed advanced technology.

I also see no reason why you absolutely cannot study science in such an environment. You could still study the stars. Since they had no written records, we don't actually know what their knowledge of primitive sciences was. Their lifestyles seem to largely be a matter of their beleiefs and philosophy.

Yes, which is why I said that Caucasians evolved in colder climates than Africans, but not colder climates than East Asians.

>then their descendants wouldn't have developed advanced technology
Their descendants only developed advanced technology because they stopped living like their ancestors due to the fact that outsiders (like the Romans) came and lifted them out of said lifestyle. The swedes probably would have never stopped living the way they did if they hadn't been exposed to the technological and cultural advancements of people who lived south of them.
>I also see no reason why you absolutely cannot study science in such an environment
I never said you couldn't, but evidence suggests that their results from studying science under such circumstances pales in comparison to the results that other people got when they didn't live in those circumstances.

Anyone with even a pittance of analytical ability will be able to tell you the following.
>If you take a black baby from African parents and raise it in a white upper class household in the US, it will turn out just as intelligent as his white peers. If you took that same baby and brought it up in the inner city in a low income black family, it would statistically perform below average when compared to upper class whites yet still above African counterparts.

It is the environment. It always has been.
Barring real genetic disorders which result in lower cognitive development, people are a product of their life experiences.

End of story.

This is not hard to realize, and you should feel stupid for not already doing so.