How come Maoris never became smart like northern Europeaners?
I mean, it is due to the harsh climate in Europe naturally selecting for intelligence in humans that they became smart.
This is since humans had no fur and the only thing that could keep them alive was intellect.
Was the New Zealand climate not harsh enough or were they just not there for long enough for natural selection to go to work on their genome?
well.
A) thank you very much, I am Maori.
B) in maori culture there wasn't much need to be inventive or innovative since they had everything they needed and invention is prompted by necessity.
C) what natural selection. the maoris completely Dominated the food chain.
The Maori were there for a much shorter time, and they never invented stuff like true colonialism or feudalism which would cause competition and capitalism leading to industrialism leading to "smartness"
whites were smart during medieval times. the true answer is that maoris came to new zealand very recently so there was no time to for evolution to work on their DNA. Also, the climate probably isn't quite harsh enough.
Weren't northern Europeans a bunch of tribes that the Romans(southern euros) referred to as barbarians?
they were barbaric. but being barbaric doesn't mean you cant into math and science.
if harsh climate is the key to intelligence, why aren't people from alaska a bunch of einstein living in the ice?
According to the dictionary, it does.
you don't need to be an einstein to do well in the cold. maybe 120 IQ or so and that's the point of dimishing returns.
Read this book.
reminder that he claims papua new guineans are the strongest race in the world in that book
kek
Barbarian literally means non-greek-speaking because to the Greeks others sound like they're going "bar bar bar" when they talk.
>I mean, it is due to the harsh climate in Europe naturally selecting for intelligence in humans that they became smart.
We do not know what is the cause of the gaps in intelligence. Might be some selective pressure, adaptive introgression, whatever. It's an open question. Doesn't look like it's climate if you think about it for more than 30 seconds.
Man, they were still living in tribes. There's no damage control here.
>Caesar described the cultural differences between the Germanic tribesmen, the Romans, and the Gauls. He said that the Gauls, although warlike, could be civilized, but the Germanic tribesmen were far more savage and were a threat to Roman Gaul and so had to be conquered.
the barbs will never accept it.
t. mediterrean masterrace
seems kinda biased from pic related
Being civilzed and being intelligent is not the same thing, even though the intelligence of a people drastically increase the "greatness" of their civilization, civilizations thrive in mild environment, while intelligence can only be selected for in harsh environment.
Comparing the intelligence of 2 peoples by comparing their civilizations is unfair if their environments are not similar.
In definitive the best environment for a civilization would be a very harsh one in it's early stage (to increase the intelligence), then a mild one (to decrease the difficulty of creating a civilization). Wich is exactly what happend in Europe.
In his 1938 book, Heredity and Politics, written largely as a riposte to the noxious racial politics of Nazi Germany, J.B.S. Haldane devoted two chapters to what evolutionary biology, or more specifically the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, implies for racial differences in man. Much of what he says is level-headed. On the issue of race and intelligence, Haldane specifically compares the ability of Pacific Maoris with that of Australoids. For instance he cites Maui Pomare, a Maori who had actually for a time served as Prime Minister of New Zealand:
We cannot, I think, deny a very considerable difference in the behaviour of the Maoris and the Australian black-fellow, and we can ask whether it is due to nature or nurture? That is an exceedingly difficult question to answer. But I find it very hard to rule out nature. (p. 141)
Haldane's assessment of ability finds support in intelligence tests. By world standards, Maori are bright, and perform much higher than Australoids. The median IQ of 15 studies of Maori from New Zealand is 90. This is probably higher than other Polynesians, as the median IQ of 14 additional studies from 6 non-Maori Polynesian territories is 85.
even a nazi book thought their iq was 90 in 1930s
It could even be something as farfetched as a difference in education.
If you look at a country like Japan with identical mellow climates (change in temperature is actually temporate compared to new Zealand) then you can see for yourself why climate has nothing to do with it. Incapability is not a factor for the human brain when looking at intellect. Guarantee if you raise a little Maori orphan to be scholarly and studious, it'll become a very smart person.
ctrl-f maori
>Maori(100)
v-weiss.de
from PISA scores, even according to richard lynn
maoris apparently have an average of 100
that's funny, isn't it
There is no such thing as race. Get out of here with your pseudo-science. It is purely environmental/cultural
>if harsh climate is the key to intelligence, why aren't people from alaska a bunch of einstein living in the ice?
It's not just harsh climate that is the key, but variance in climate. It's having to PLAN for cold winters and how to preserve your food that leads to intelligence.
can i maori gf
>the harsh climate in Europe
lol
where's the evidence for this
or is just one of those "well it SOUNDS plausible to me so it must be true" things
So middle easternees are hyper intelligent due to living in the most hostile environment the desert?
aha
is why civilization started there
Is it me or Americans are the ones who love to do it? "I don't really know but I just came up with this hypothesis that makes sense in my head so I'll say it like it's a fact"
What? I thought he claimed papua new guinea people never evolved because they always had to look for food? Its been ages since i read that book
Harsh climate actually hinders intelligence.
If harsh climate helped, African would be full of geniuses.
What helps is actually mild climate that allows for civilisations to flourish. From civilisations you get division of labour and from division of labour you get people working on intellectual pursuits and from that you get sexual selection for intelligence.
Also who told you that Northern Europeans are smart, lol?
There's a reason why the fertile crescent has been called the "cradle of humanity"
you probably don't know this but that was back then
now the tigrus and euphrates don't flow in iraq due to turks damming the rivers (and other climate changes)
if iraq was still a country the turks would have never been able to do that
How ya doing, John?
I'm not sure the middle east during the ice age was more hostile than Europe.
The middle East contained the first civilizations because they had the best middle ground between harsh and mild needed for great civilization.
Africa was too mild, intelligence never developped.
Europe was too harsh, intelligence was there but the conditions were too hard.
It would be nice to see if this pattern is coherent with Asian history, but I don't know it at all.
>Africa was too mild
The Maoris arrived in New Zealand in the 13th century. Not nearly enough time.
Nice race baiting though.
If /pol/ is so full of Europeans why hasn't it developed a smidgen of intelligence?
...
Yeah, Maoris are somehow inherently inferior in their genetics because they prefer to chill out with nature instead of starting world wars all the time. Thanks for clearing that out, /pol/.
Where is the evidence that all human beings on earth have exactly the same capacity for intellect?
What's with the idea that Europe has a harsh climate?
Sure user. Step right up!
oh look it's fucking nothing
>chill out with nature
The pacifi islander cultures were extremely combative. Their wars just weren't nearly as spectacular, because they slaughtered eachother with wooden sticks instead of metal pew-pews and other boom-booms.
If you are trying to imply Africa has a harsh environment you should educate yourself.
Africa is objectively the richest continent in about any ressources imaginable, including fertile lands. There is a reason it was the breadbasket of the world when it was properly supervised by french and brits.
Pic related is what most of Africa looks like, it's not a desert like the medias want you to believe.
Can't wait to get into that calm river to fish and get eaten by a gigantic hippo.
the also like to eat nature, and the local people (Mori-Ori) were also included under this heading.