Tropical people vs. Arctic people

[PLA1092]

The Italians IQ mog the Eskimos. All white groups of people IQ mog the Eskimos.

The Eskimos are comparable in IQ to Persians and Indians.

why?

 

[NoLooksNoLife]

I have noticed that people descended from tropical people are similar to other people descended from tropical people all over the world, no matter how far they live from each other. People descended from Arctic people are similar to other people descended from arctic people the world over.

The best examples of tropical people are Sub-Saharan Africans, Australian Aborigines, and mestizos from the areas around Mexico and Central America. These gorups of tropical people all have great similarities with other groups of tropical people, even though they are oceans apart from each other. Tropical people are lazy, stupid, and violent. Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of approximately 70. The average IQ among Australian aborigines is approximately 60. Mestizos from Central American and Mexico have average IQs of around 85.

The most prominent examples of arctic people are Europeans and North Asians, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Arctic people are intelligent, hard-working , and less prone to violence. The average IQ of Europeans is 100. The average IQ of North Asians such as Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans is around 103.

Why are tropical people so similar to other tropical people, even though they are far removed from them geographically? Why are Europeans similar to North Asians, despite the fact that they live thousands of miles from each other? Arctic climates selected for the same traits worldwide during the last ice age. Tropical climates also selected for the same traits.


In Europe and North Asia, people had to plan ahead and construct water-proof well-insulated houses to survive the winter in the last ice age. They also had to stock their houses with plenty of firewood and food. Any Europeans or North Asians who waited until winter came to start building their houses would perish and not pass on their genes. Europeans and North Asians who had the foresight to construct waterproof, well insulated houses survived and passed on their genes to another generation of Europeans and North Asians. This selected for several traits among Europeans and North Asians. It selected for intelligence, but it also selected for a stout work ethic and socially cohesive behavior. In Europe and North Asia, people had to work hard at building houses and stockpiling enough firewood and food to last for months. This made it so that hard working Europeans and North Asians would survive and pass on their genes for a stout work ethic. Lazy Europeans and lazy North Asians would perish in the winter and not pass on their genes. Furthermore, all these extra tasks of needing to construct houses and stock them with firewood and food required Europeans and North Asians to need to work together a lot, and, thus, fostered a tendency towards socially cohesive behavior (morality) that tropical people did not have.

In Tropical climates, the ice age was a lot milder because people were closer to the equator. People did not have to construct any houses at all to survive the winter. The only thing people in tropical climates had to do to survive was to be able to walk over to a banana tree and pick a banana off the tree and eat it. Then they had to have enough gumption to be able to squat later and defecate. That's it. So people did not need much of a work ethic to survive in tropical climates.

Dnr

 

[unique_freak]

why?

I don't know why the Italians IQ mog the Eskimos.

 

[PLA1092]

I don't know why the Italians IQ mog the Eskimos.

then your theory has inconsistencies that you can't explain

 

[IngsocSimp]

There was not much food available in the arctic regions for prehistoric people. The population would not get any bigger than the maximum amount of people that the food in an arctic region could sustain.

I'm not only referring to that area though. There's also the plains and southern canada.

 

[unique_freak]

then your theory has inconsistencies that you can't explain

Yes. But that's not necessarily a big problem. It doesn't mean that my theory is wrong.

 

[unique_freak]

I'm not only referring to that area though. There's also the plains and southern canada.

I don't know. I'm not some all-knowing God.

 

[PLA1092]

Yes. But that's not necessarily a big problem. It doesn't mean that my theory is wrong.

it does if there's something contradicting it

 

[unique_freak]

it does if there's something contradicting it

The general trend of people from areas far from the equator being more intelligent than people from around the equator is obviously true. Just because I'm not some omniscient God who can explain every inconsistency does not mean that my theory is not generally true.

My only source for Eskimo IQ is the global IQ map that I posted in post #53. I don't know when the Eskimo IQ numbers were attained. I don't know the exact living conditions of the Eskimos whose IQ scores informed the person who made the global IQ map. There are other explanations. IQ is only about 60% genetic. Since the inception of IQ tests in World War 1, the Italians have generally lived in more well-developed areas than the Eskimos. The Eskimos probably received far less schooling than the Italians whose test scores informed the person who made the global IQ map. Going to school and learning how to read and write, manipulate numbers, find out about one's culture and about the discoveries of science in one's childhood are all things that are going to raise IQ compared to not going to school or to going to school for a far smaller percentage of one's childhood.

So the Eskimos could have been blessed with the same genetics for IQ as Italians (or even better genetics than the Italians), and it might still be possible for Italians to IQ mog Eskimos just due to the environment.

 

[starcrapoo]

I said people, not chimps.





Those are tropical people. So it doesn't refute my thesis

rofl. so those prehistoric humans living in colder climates just hunted their food and sang kumbaya at the fire and lived peacefully with other humans on the otherside of the valley/mountain. right...

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

Re: hi, argentina is white

Unintelligent_Anon Join Date: 2016-02-24 Post Count: 361

#190223047Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:23 AM CDT Nonsense. Let us recall that the Spic territories are a cesspool of Caucasoid-Amerindian hybridization. Coupled with the Polynesian DNA infusions, Argentine individuals are genetically impure(In addition to being intellectually-inferior to Caucasian individuals), and thus not "true" Caucasian individuals. The advantages of a mere sliver of Caucasoid DNA are quickly offset by the defective traits introduced via primitive tribal parasites. Do not feign supposed "adequacy"; it is nonexistent.

 

[unique_freak]

Bumped for bannedincel

 

[hollowcel]

I'm very arctic

 

[unique_freak]

I'm very arctic

I doubt that you're as arctic as me. Look at my profile picture

 

[SneakPower611]

The closer you are to the equator, the more primitive/less human you are. That's why non-humans like niggers/abos are closest to the equator while humans like Europeans are farthest from it.

 

[Rick prime]

Tropical people are lazy, stupid, and violent.

Idk man the modern day northern folk are fat. While the tropic people mog them hard.

 

[ForevrAlone]

5 paragraphs of cope

 

[ForevrAlone]

Now inferior "arctic" people are getting culled and their wives and daughters are getting blacked by Chad Tropical niggers.
I give it 2-3 generations years untill cumskins are completely erradicated from the planet

 

[Wizardmaxxer]

Arctict people supremacy, tropical ones are a bunch of fucking niggers

 

[wereq]

Why are tropical people so similar to other tropical people, even though they are far removed from them geographically? Why are Europeans similar to North Asians, despite the fact that they live thousands of miles from each other? Arctic climates selected for the same traits worldwide during the last ice age. Tropical climates also selected for the same traits.

Because similar environmental conditions create similar types of organisms. Basic evolution.

 

[wereq]

Arctict people supremacy, tropical ones are a bunch of fucking niggers

 

[Blackpill Monk]

@Hoodpreet check this out

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

The general trend of people from areas far from the equator being more intelligent than people from around the equator is obviously true. Just because I'm not some omniscient God who can explain every inconsistency does not mean that my theory is not generally true.

My only source for Eskimo IQ is the global IQ map that I posted in post #53. I don't know when the Eskimo IQ numbers were attained. I don't know the exact living conditions of the Eskimos whose IQ scores informed the person who made the global IQ map. There are other explanations. IQ is only about 60% genetic. Since the inception of IQ tests in World War 1, the Italians have generally lived in more well-developed areas than the Eskimos. The Eskimos probably received far less schooling than the Italians whose test scores informed the person who made the global IQ map. Going to school and learning how to read and write, manipulate numbers, find out about one's culture and about the discoveries of science in one's childhood are all things that are going to raise IQ compared to not going to school or to going to school for a far smaller percentage of one's childhood.

So the Eskimos could have been blessed with the same genetics for IQ as Italians (or even better genetics than the Italians), and it might still be possible for Italians to IQ mog Eskimos just due to the environment.

eskimos testing higher for IQ than "civilized" mesoamericans is actually very significant. they pass a weird ass yt test better than people who have infinitely more contact with civilization (and tests). for comparison, african niggers score 15 points lower than usa niggers. if inuit were to integrate into ytcuck soyciety, they'd score around 106, a northeast asian value

 

[unique_freak]

Jfl you are a total idiot 12,000 years ago europe was populated by hunter gatherers they lived the ice age but they did not contribute a lot to the modern day european gene pool

Europeans are mainly a mix of EEF (early european farmers) that came from anatolia 9.000 years ago and indo europeans that arrived 4.000 years ago

What is your source for your statement that Europeans are mainly a mix of Early European farmers that came from anatolia 9,000 years ago and Indo Europeans that arrived 4,000 years ago?

Your post contradicts what the author Nicholas Wade wrote in his book Before the Dawn. Wade wrote the following: "The Richards team's reconstruction of the population history of Europe brought to light an unexpected fact: that most Europeans are descended from the first settlers who arrived during the Upper Paleolithic era. Only a minority arrived during the Neolithic age.....The findings suggest that the people of the upper Paleolithic did not die out; they switched from foraging to settlement and adopted the new farming techniques."

Upper Paleolithic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to wikipedia, the Upper Paleolithic period is roughly from 50,000 to 12,000 years ago.

Neolithic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia labels the Neolithic period as from 10,000 BC to 2,000 BC.

So Nicholas Wade's assertions in his book Before the Dawn contradict your claims as 9,000 years ago and 4,000 years ago are well within the Neolithic period.