question for /pol/ armchair anthropologists

>>136042643
thank you for this word soup

Africa has more natural resources than Europe/Asia making it easier to survive there.

Theoretically you need a higher problem solving ability to survive in more hostile climates, and one of the things IQ measures is problem solving ability. In a land full of farmable land and wild animals for meat compared to the Nordic climates, the semitic deserts, or the mountainous archipalego of Japan, problem solving isn't as useful because the climate isn't an extra selection pressure.

There was no need to select for it, you see, they were in an environment where intelligence more or less did not matter where as strength and physical ability did. The opposite case is with the Jewish population which set up a social structure in which those who had high intelligence were rewarded with power and good lifestyles. You also have to understand that they have a entirely different conception of what "intelligence" is than we do, the Jews measured it through tests and scholarly work that they themselves made. I'm not sure how you could define intelligence in a sub Saharan society

>>136042643

Two factors: Plentiful food due to the climate, coupled with a high death rate caused by rampant diseases and dangerous predators. Africans had to focus on fast reproduction to overcome the death rate, selecting for aggression and dominance in males.

The lack of a need for agriculture made developing intelligence unnecessary for Africans, unlike Europeans, who were forced to adapt to the lack of easily accessible food and annual winters by evolving a greater ability for abstract thinking, but had less of a need to evolve aggressive tendencies due to the relative lack of dangerous diseases and predators killing children young.

>>136042643
Because it wasn't needed. Moving north into colder territories required high intelligence for many reasons.