People say that whites got smarter because of adversity due

>>135799396
They all breed an awful lot in Africa you dumb fuck.

>>135799396
>Whites are smart because cold
What about meds? Or Mesopotamia? India? Persia? None of these places are particularly cold, all hosted advanced civilizations and intelligent people.

>>135799396
Good
because something needs to make them smarter

>>135799584
Yes, but successful people tend to breed with successful people. African countries are new and full of adversity. The most capable are going to rise to the top and breed with other people at the top creating a smarter population.

>>135799969
That's what people say. I'm just using their logic.

>>135799396
Whites are smarter because they are white. How is this even debatable?

>>135800217
Your IQ is 85 at most.

>People say
I'm less focused on why X exists and more on the evidence that it exists, X amounting to
>IQ being a very good measure of cognition and predictor of life success
>Cognitive and behavioral traits being heritable to a high degree, even if we are unable to pick out which traits from clusters of traits as correlating to certain genes or gene groups
>Race being a useful heuristic because of phenotypic clustering, even though "muh more genetic diversity exists within races than between them"
>IQ normally reverting to the population mean within 3 generations, even accounting for the Flynn Effect

>>135800119
what youre using isnt logic buddy

>>135799396
But yet it hasnt
Not in a million fucking years
Wonder why?

>>135800619
That is to say:
>Some high IQ populations exist outside of Europe and European-colonized areas
>This includes East Asians, Igbo Nigerians, and certain South Asian Populations
>This does not disprove the above noted premises
>This simply means that certain populations, for whatever reasons, in the aggregate, developed certain traits
>Much the same way, just because one can point to fast Inuit sprinters, it doesn't invalidate the genetic advantages the Kalenjin in that area

>>135800733
Point the flaw at my "non-logic".

>>135799396
not enough of them are dying for that to happen

they estimate small numbers of people left on the planet like maybe 30 when humanity evolved the most. They were not surviving well.

>>135801014
Until recently they used to live in tribes. Now they were forced to form a nation. Things were set in motion and will force them into becoming better.

>>135800119
You aren't even using a proper construction of the argument, which would appear as follows:
>Group A has over 50% of its population above 100 IQ
>Group A has a population of 8.3 million people
>Group B has under 40% of its population above 100 IQ
>Group B has a population of 186 million people
>Group A is Switzerland
>Group B is Nigeria
>If you looked at just raw amounts of people with IQs above 100, then Nigeria would be the winner.
>If you looked at proportions of people with IQs above 100, then Switzerland would be the winner.

>>135801804
Whites weren't always smarter. They weren't even always white. What I'm saying that one of the explanation they give is the adversity they faced due to the environment. I've seen this explanation many times. I'm saying that the same is happening in Africa. I'm saying that an elite will rise. I'm saying these people will be the smartest of the group and they will breed with only the smartest. They'll rule their country and if they make it better a middle class will appear the same will happen in the middle class. I'm talking long term. What's wrong with my thinking?

>>135799396
The adversity/hardship must be significant enough to stop breeding.