If high IQ is all that maters then how come the highest IQ countries have barely contributed anything too world history...

>India having a lower IQ than Ireland or any of the slavic nations
I guess IQ really doesn't mean shit in terms of historical achievement because compared to them, Indians might as well have invented math.

I am curious though. Why is it? Is it because civilisation is a drag and the land that far north didn't used to be the best farmland back when the Mediterranean was better for grain farming? So there were people who didn't want to be conquered, and their land wasn't worth it?

The comparison of "national IQs" is close to bogus anyways. Anyone who ever took a test or knows some psychometric basics should be aware of that. You would need an internationally normed single test availabe in all participants languages and determine the median 100 score first. Now you have several tests weighed against each other and whatnot while average lurktard goes "hurrdurr I'm smarter than a pygmie"
People like OP should hide under a rock for taking these meme pics seriously.

IQ isn't the only thing that matters. It's very important and it correlates with other things that are very important but it's not the whole story, nobody thinks it's the whole story.

It's a fair test in terms of using the data to see progress.
Improve sanitary conditions (e.g. less parasites), improve nutrition and so on and we can use this as a baseline.

If you measure the upper castes in India, you get much higher scores.
>You would need an internationally normed single test availabe in all participants languages and determine the median 100 score firs

...yes?

>If you measure the upper castes in India, you get much higher scores.
What is your point here? That the upper class has a higher IQ? No shit. You'd likely see that trend with every country. It's useless skewed data if you don't use the same criteria for each country.

>...yes?
Yes. The data for these comparisons are all just estimates gathering their data from a variety of tests.

>It's a fair test in terms of using the data to see progress.
It still isnt because you cant compare children with adults and the sample sizes vary stupidly.

This is the raw data

France tainted herself with millions of Moors

While I'd agree with you, there is no way I'm not smarter than the average pygmie

Nobody says IQ is all that matters. If they do they are shallow.

The average pygmie has shit hygiene, nutrition, and practically no education in comparison to you.

I wouldn't survive in the jungle though. Well maybe a few weeks at the price of shit hygiene and nutrition.

are you trying to say we wuzn't?

Reminds me of how they used IQ tests from 10 mentally ill child retards in a spanish asylum and claimed it represented the average of Equatorial Guinea

Or how they simply guessed about most of Africa

And how Finland just so happens by chance to have the highest IQ despite being primitive hunters and fishermen up until the late middle ages

>tfw too intelligent for technology

You are but if the Pygmie had the same life as you then it would just be down to local genetics ie family.

>/int/ meme version
>portugal isn't the darkest shade of red

>In this moment, I am Germanic. Not because of some phony complex architecture or written language, but because I am enlightened by my intelligence

>Tfw I am sharing this board with Catholic brainlets

East Asians fabricate their IQ scores

The real reason that Nordcucks didn't progress like the medshits is that being a hunter-gatherer was much more efficient than agricultural cuck thus lower population densities ect ect

What this means though is that us Nordics are actually much more genetically superior to medcucks and Mesopotamian cucks because we've experienced less of the harmful effects from agriculture.

t. Norman who's family conquered a significant chunk out of Europe.

...

>When my snow nig ancestors didn't prgoress it's because they recognized, in their infinite wisdom, the advantages of a hunter-gatherer versus being agriculturalist
>when regular nigs remain hunter-gatherers it's just because they were too retarded
Never mind that neither germanics nor black africans were hunter-gatherers by 400 AD.

all average but Albania assuming a Standard Deviation of 15

>IQ is supposedly genetic
>Genes flow across land borders
>There is a great difference above and below the Sahara hence people couldn't cross it effectively
>Civilization was supposed to spread across it somehow

rly makes u think....

>adjusting iq scores with PISA scores which don't measure g

Lynn is a hack

The concept of "contributing" to history is teleological so I'm not bothering with your question.

well he is fucking wrong about the castes thing,
A thing to keep in mind is that India has a major problem with chronic malnutrition because of a pretty terrible supply chain that makes the price of fruits, vegetables and meat too expensive.

>Norman who's family conquered a significant chunk out of Europe
>Significant chunk

The upper castes in India tend to be different, as in, genetically. It's not just "people with money".

normandy was pretty much a pen to put snowniggers in so that the french could laugh at them.

>upper castes
and people in different parts of india tend to be different from each other genetically you dumbass. It's a country that is as big as western europe in terms of population size.

area wise, not pop wise.

India's population is 500 million more than the entirety of Europe's.

An IQ in the fifties is equivalent to a child. I don't mean on an intellectual level, I mean in even the most basic things. If the population of these countries really were that dumb, they would probably starve to death. Bad data is bad.

Let's spread democracy

But only sarcastically ironically

But they do starve to death

If they had a IQs in the 50s, they would have starved to death 12,000 years ago. Africans starving is a modern thing that results from government corruption.

What?

...

That would explain that population bottleneck from thousands of years ago
Also many western countries are corrupt as fuck and we don't starve

So pathetic you have to rely on group idenity to justify your worth.
Lmao

>That would explain that population bottleneck from thousands of years ago
No it wouldn't. Are you sure you don't have an IQ of 50, because that makes no fucking sense.
>Also many western countries are corrupt as fuck and we don't starve
If you actually think that the degree of political corruption in Europe is at all comparable to that of Africa you need to get off the computer and take a walk outside. Reality has much to show you user.

Red pill me on Antiochia, Veeky Forums.

That first part was a joke
And to make an example, Italy is a disgrace in terms of corruption and yet it's a first world country

It was a Norman crusader state that lasted about 170 years. It was mostly populated by Armenians.

Italy is a disgrace by European standards. But if you think it's anything compared to the practical lawlessness that is Somalia, you've got another thing coming.

That's not corruption, that's inability to create a state at all
And guess why that happens

You see that big expanse of land between Europe and China? Yeah, turns out there's a whole bunch of land there, which until recent times meant it took ungodly long for ideas to spread from one to the other. The Chinks and especially the Pajeets made many , many advances in mathematics and philosophy, the problem is the West had thousands of years headstart to either.

>That's not corruption
lol, Somalia is literally the highest ranked country on the corruption index. You're just denying facts now.

A non-existent state cannot be corrupt, for it does not even exist
If I kill a guy it's not assault anymore, it's outright murder

It's a state that did exist. The reason is stopped existing was because it was literally the most corrupt institution on the planet. There are literally only 3 african nations that are less corrupt than Italy. These are the facts, this is reality.

Huh, you're right
And you don't think an average IQ of 50 would cause such incredible dysfunctionality?
Except for north Africa, that continent has always been poorer than other places, a low IQ would explain that wouldn't it?

>And you don't think an average IQ of 50 would cause such incredible dysfunctionality?
No, because they weren't always this corrupt and they weren't always starving, because they did not and still do not have an average IQ of 50. A random towny living the Kingdom of Kongo 300 years ago probably had it better than the average citizen of the Central African Republic has it today.
>Except for north Africa, that continent has always been poorer than other places, a low IQ would explain that wouldn't it?
No, because North Africa hasn't always been poorer than other places. In 200 BC North Africa was way better than the British Isles. Also, North Africans are more closely related to Europeans than they are black africans.

I did say except for North Africa, they are pretty good, Islam ruined them like Catholicism ruined southern Europe
And the graph shows that
And now that I look at it better, the bare minimum is 59, and Africa has 70/60 IQ, which is more reasonable
Also Africa has always had worse living conditions, even the past, nowadays we have tvs and thr Internet which shows us the difference, but that doesn't mean it wasn't always there

>Europe is mostly under 100

Sorry, when you said "except" I thought you were meaning to make North Africa the point of comparison.

Yes Africa has always been poorer, but you can't just observe that result and assume the causes are genetic inferiority. You have to prove it beyond other factors that might be at fault.

The only Africans who hunted and gathered were either Pygmies, people in the Khoisan race who look more African (look up click languages that aren't Bantu) or the San themselves.

The bottleneck mainly affected people OUTSIDE Africa you fucking idiot. The Khoisan were the most numerous race at the time, and they barely suffered compared to what would become Black Africans and Eurasians.

>be white American
>be more intelligent than every type of Yuropoor

feels good man

You do realize that most wild animals would test and have IQs lower than that, right? IQ has nothing to do with surviving, because we've been surviving for millions of years, even our ancestors with significantly lower IQs. Africans actually have lower IQs because they live life on easy mode in Africa, in terms of survival. Sure, now, compared to the rest of the civilized world it sucks over there, but before modern civilization it was easy to find food and stuff, definitely a lot easier than in the cold snowy conditions in Europe, which had the Europeans develop their brains differently to adapt.

Something called

THE CLIMATE IS FUCKING COLD

Also how many years had it been since Africa has consistently scored in the retard range?

t. Mario

>You do realize that most wild animals would test and have IQs lower than that, right?
Most wild animals don't manage to invent argiculture, and metallurgy. A group of argiculturalists with an average IQ of 50 would starve to death.
>which had the Europeans develop their brains differently to adapt.
Then I wonder why Eskimos and Tibetans didn't have their brains develop differently. I also wonder why Egyptians living in a much easier area than Northern Europe, created a much more complex civilization much earlier than they did.

Italy is a drop dead drunk alcholic that runs the best law firm in NYC. It's miracle how he can even run it, still has a liver, still alive, or how he even climbed the career ladder and became a lawyer in the first case.

IQ is meant to measure mental retardation in kids. Of course it would falter in measuring adults.

But I'm very smart tho

This easy mode survival meme needs to die a brutal death. Just a relaxing Mexican neck massage

Barely suffered what?