Anthropologists believe that civilization emerged independently in only the following six places: Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andes. What all of these civilizations have in common is that they were created by either Mongoloids (China, Mesoamerica, the Andes) or Caucasoids (Mesopotamia, Egypt, and India). The reason why only Mongoloids and Caucasoids independently founded civilizations is that only these races had sufficient exposure to the ice age to evolve the intelligence needed.
And yet ironically, it was the least intelligent Caucasoids (Middle Easterners, South Asians) and least intelligent Mongoloids (Native Americans) who made almost all of these civilizations. Why didn’t the more intelligent Caucasoids of Europe originate a civilization? My guess is that the climate was just too cold.
And so we have a paradox. Civilization requires both a smart population and a warm climate to emerge independently. The problem is, unless the climate is too cold for civilization, the people will never evolve the smarts for civilization.
This explains why in the 200,000 years of human history, civilization only emerged in the last several thousand years. Before the ice age, all human populations were just too dumb for civilization. During the ice age, it was just way too cold for civilization. Only after the ice age ended were there people who were both smart enough and warm enough to originate civilizations.
Scholar Michael Hart made a similar argument to explain why agriculture emerged when and where it did, though agriculture probably didn’t require much intelligence since it appears to have emerged independently in Papua New Guinea, suggesting it is not beyond the intelligence of Negroid populations. It is however probably beyond the most primitive Negroids (i.e. Bushmen).
The invention of agriculture was probably only possible once some human races had exceeded an average genetic IQ of 73. By contrast, independent civilizations likely required an average genetic IQ around 90.
Papuans are not negroids, they are australoids who are genetically very far from negroids(africans).
It doesn’t work that way
yes he was correct. razib khan wrote about it.
Wanted to mention that earlier. Papuans share many physiological and mental characteristics with sub-Saharan Negroids, but they’re not sub-Saharan Negroids. Basic human genetics.
Experts don’t believe those were the only places civilization independently arose, only that they were the first places civilization independently arose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_formation
I cited several books detailing this in terms of Africa, I cited wiki, etc.
I cited multiple sources that refer to them as the six independent civilizations, not the first six independent civilizations:
These were among the six civilizations worldwide that arose independently
http://www.quora.com/Considering-world-history-which-are-the-oldest-civilizations-known-corresponding-to-the-specific-regions-of-the-world-which-embarked-the-history-of-those-corresponding-regions
It is one of six civilizations globally to arise independently
https://kidskonnect.com/history/ancient-egypt/
The Andean region is widely recognized as the locus of development of one of the worlds six major independent civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andes)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/506281?uid=3737720&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21106691396343
You just keep citing wikipedia, which the evidence strongly suggests you edit yourself.
middle east had much higher IQ than what Lynn claims.
90 IQ corrected for malnutrition, period.
Acoord theory that little populations develop less variation ( and ”genius”), humans who live in very cold or inospit environments, weren’t apt to sustain a greater population nor to produce complex societies to employ this cognitive diverse population. Earlier human history seems a mistery. Many unknow civilizations.
The existence of Civilizations depend a lot of environmental factors, as real meritocratic culture. I think when the necessity to survive is huge, real talented people will be naturally selected to solve problems, different than culturally subjective societies today were people aren’t selected in a direct way or by qualitative demand. Real problem solvers are not selected because errors are lucratives.
I suspect that sub-Saharan Africans have only been farming for the past 1000 years since famine of 1203 was the first recorded African famine. Farming raises iqs as it forces civilization to form. That means if we left Africans to themselves, in 5000 years, Africa would have an iq equivalent to the Philippines or India, perhaps even more. Large scale famines only started happening after colonialism which means farming is a recent thing.
And let’s not kid ourselves: the South and Southeast Asian had the benefit of copying technology, starting with writing. If Africans weren’t separated from the world by the Sahara, their iqs would be higher.
Another reason may have been the general unproductive of African land. Africa was never densely populated like South or East Asia or Europe so complex social structures took longer to develop.
“I suspect that sub-Saharan Africans have only been farming for the past 1000 years since famine of 1203 was the first recorded African famine. ”
Your suspicions are wrong. Go read something, for a change. No excuse for laziness.
Could be Sub-saharian Africa, Papua New Guinea and Amazonian plains too hot to allow development of civilization? In exemple due desease load.
“And yet ironically, it was the least intelligent Caucasoids (Middle Easterners, South Asians) and least intelligent Mongoloids (Native Americans) who made almost all of these civilizations.”
Michael Hart is a nincompoop.
We don’t really know how intelligent these people were back then. Nobody knows. How is anyone supposed to guess the IQ of the ancient Sumerians? Did Hart invent a magical, Talmudic time machine and travel back to the early Iron Age to administer the Ravens to a bunch of toothless barley farmers?
Then again, Richard Lynn is the kind of person who has the nerve to publish IQ estimates for H. erectus. Yes, he actually did that.
You can’t know the IQ of past humans but you can perhaps make educated guesses. Hart did a computer simulation that he used to estimate the average IQ of different races from 50,000 years ago until today.
“You can’t know the IQ of past humans but you can perhaps make educated guesses. Hart did a computer simulation that he used to estimate the average IQ of different races from 50,000 years ago until today.”
Based on…. What? Half-assed guessing? Reading the entrails of a turkey? Consulting a gypsy medium?
I’ve read his book. His “simulations” are laughable.
If any of Gregory Clark’s research is true, we have no reason to expect that northern Europeans were close to their present IQ until the beginning of the modern era – hence they may have been unable to build a magnificent civilization during the Roman Era for reasons beyond climate. Middle Eastern populations have also changed visibly since the Ummayyad Caliphate due to miscegenation with black slaves. Entire ethnic groups have migrated, mixed, and expanded far beyond the range of their ancestral territory. Selective pressures for IQ and other traits are never constant. How do you predict any of this from a stimulation? You can’t.
Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment came pretty close to quantifying civilizations intelligence levels based on achievements. We should be able to do so for ancient times also.
This is all so speculative but it’s fun so why not.
“Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment came pretty close to quantifying civilizations intelligence levels based on achievements. ”
By that token, Ashkenazi Jews must have been extremely dull-witted until the 19th century.
Misdreavus, you have no logic. Ashkenzi intelligence started her evolution only from the ninth century and Ashkenazi Jews have a very small population given their nomad way of life.
I am really sorry for you dude.
“Ashkenazi Jews have a very small population given their nomad way of life.”
LMAO
This is the caliber of the people who post here.
What can I say? Shit attracts flies…
Zero arguments, as I expected.
Ancient know civilizations was very hierarchical. Is not ilogical to speculate if the ”cognitive elites” of this ancient civilizations were ”very Intelligent” and the governed crowds were intelligent enough to sustain complex socio-economic systems or was being intelligent by later selective filter as meritocratic’ burocracy in chinese civilization. Then, is not unilaterally important the average intelligence but the average intelligence of cognitive elites too.
Looking to panis et circenses today in western world, i no would doubt if the average quantitative-technic intelligence of roman masses was very similar than american masses today. A average roman could learn what the average american or european learn in school and in the job today?? Slavery was or is the common result when the cognitive gap between elites and serville classes is very higher. Tecnology and collective well-being progress need a ‘better’ workforce to sustain these expansion of socio-economic stability. Social benesses and status create a cognitive classes. In the final, middle classes begin to copy elite behaviour and civilization turn sterile itself. In the ancient times, these social advantages can have contributed to change the epicenter of higher fertility in demographics very quickly.
“And yet ironically, it was the least intelligent Caucasoids (Middle Easterners, South Asians) and least intelligent Mongoloids (Native Americans) who made almost all of these civilizations. Why didn’t the more intelligent Caucasoids of Europe originate a civilization? My guess is that the climate was just too cold.”
Middle Easterners were at that time the most intelligent Caucasoids. They are least intelligent “now”. Civilization is a much better evidence of higher intelligence than the current IQ tests applied to their grand-grandchildren.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions
Are you talking about the Golden Age of Islam, where most of the talented Muslim intellectuals came from the fringes of the Middle East (such as Persia) and not the epicenter of it? To me the ancient civilizations of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Assyrians don’t hold a candle to the Southern Euro region civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome.
I am not talking about Golden Age of Islam. I am talking about the period before Greeks and Romans.
Egyptians, and then Mesopotamia, etc.
There is a geological trend of civilization… africa-egypt-mesopotamia-greece-romans-mideurope-north-europe-…
China and india are not in that geological pattern, but chinese and Indians higher casts are extremely smart, and southern Indians smarter, even…
extreme northern scandinavians are not that smart either, southern norway, finland or sweden is probably smarter. People are too mobile, therefore correlations fail…
“This explains why in the 200,000 years of human history, civilization only emerged in the last several thousand years. Before the ice age, all human populations were just too dumb for civilization. During the ice age, it was just way too cold for civilization. Only after the ice age ended were there people who were both smart enough and warm enough to originate civilizations. ”
Civilization emerged recently because what we call civilization is the closest to our current situation, and therefore automatically recent. It seems only to be a problem of words/semantic.
Cold might “select” higher IQs, but it does not alone “create” higher IQs than current highest IQ.
At the end, you only need an IQ of 90 (average world IQ), to survive in the coldest climates in the world.
Alcoholicwisdom,
Why India not??
Freezer,
if ashkenazis was nomadic during middle ages then modern americans also may could be treated as ”nomadic”. I think numerous expulsions of ashkenazis in the past give them this possibly pseudo-nomadic social nature. Other complement explanation is that jewish communities on average have higher proportion of merchants who are more nomadic-like in ther oiconomic lifestyle. Like truck drivers in Brazil who could be considered as ”individual nomadics”.
About ashkenazis specific intelligence profiles like astuteness ( a pure form of intelligence??), is important take into account that intelligence, most of times, is comparative. Then, even ashkenazis had lower intelligence in the past compared with today, this average lower intelligence could be higher than average intelligences of ancient peoples.
http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html
What Is Intelligence, Anyway?
By Isaac Asimov
What is intelligence, anyway?
When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me.
(It didn’t mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP – kitchen police – as my highest duty.)
All my life I’ve been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I’m highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too.
Actually, though, don’t such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests – people with intellectual bents similar to mine?
For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was.
Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles – and he always fixed my car.
Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test.
Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I’d prove myself a moron, and I’d be a moron, too.
In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly.
My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.
Consider my auto-repair man, again.
He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me.
One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: “Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand.
“The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?”
Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers.
Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, “Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them.”
Then he said smugly, “I’ve been trying that on all my customers today.” “Did you catch many?” I asked. “Quite a few,” he said, “but I knew for sure I’d catch you.”
“Why is that?” I asked. “Because you’re so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn’t be very smart.”
And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.
~ ~ ~
Autobiography by Dr. Isaac Asimov (1920–1992):
You must realise these regions (South Asia and Middle East and I may also add South East Asians) fall in between the Caucasian stronghold of Europe especially Northern Europe, the Mongoloid stronghold of North East Asia, the Australoid stronghold of Australia/ Papua New Guinea and the Negroid stronghold of Sub Saharan Africa. So these were the regions where these 4 groups interacted and finally interbred from pre historic times. I know human bio diversity is too complicated by breaking us into 4 groups but this theory makes sense in its own right.
In other words, North Africa, Middle East, Horn of Africa, South Asia and even South East Asia are a kind of ancient Brazil- Mexico, race wise. India for example is formed by the mixture of all the 4 races but the most dominant are Caucasoid (Ancestral North Indian) and Australoid (Ancestral South Indian). If you take a train from Pakistan to Sri lanka, the facial structure of the population goes from more Caucasian to more Australoid by the time you hit Karnataka state in India. Also Upper caste Indians are more Caucasian looking while lower caste are more black looking though there are many exceptions to this they are all mixed like Mexico-Brazil. That explains why the average IQ (and looks and skin tone) here is similar to Mulattoes/ Hispanics/ mixed Brazilians.
I believe the first civilizations began in these regions because high IQ Whites and East Asians at some time in the past started migrating south from the harsh cold age Eurasian North. When they reached the Middle East- North Africa- North India latitudes (the middle zone), they found life much easier. They had evolved to just survive in the harsh ice age North Eurasia. Nature will only make you smart enough to just survive not build civilizations. But when these high IQ populations came to the middle zone, because of the ample sunshine etc… and ease of life, survival was no longer a problem for these high IQ people here. Thus they could direct some of their intelligence, resources and time to “higher things” beyond survival and this gave rise to the rise of civilization, monuments, philosophy etc… because now they had more time and energy beyond mere survival. But unfortunately they came across low IQ Negroid or Austaloid populations in these regions with whom they eventually interbred (after many years of apartheid, wars etc…). the resultant population would have an intermediate IQ (IQ in the 80s range), an IQ enough to maintain and flourish in an agriculture age.
I did read somewhere that in most wars high IQ people tend to defeat low IQ people though there are some exceptions. Similarly it has been found that in most wars between a Northern (people away from the tropics) and Southern (people closer to the tropics) populations, the Northerners tend to win. There are few exceptions to the above but in general that seems to be the case. For example Rome never fell to Egypt, Carthage or Judea but to the Germanians. The Chinese were never conquered by the Hmong, Vietnamese or Thai but by the Mongols, Manchus and Japanese. This process has been happening from pre historic times when Northern populations conquered populations living in a warmer zone. This would eventually lead to interracial sex and high IQ genes would be introduced in the Southern population. The problem with Sub Saharan Africans and Papuans is that they were absent from this process which the people of the Middle Zone benefitted from. They remained pure tropical races surviving the tropics with their low IQs.
So now what about the people who remained back in the extreme north like Northern Europe and North East Asia. The problem here, except the North China plains region was that they still lived in a harsh climate (though the climate in Europe and Japan warmed up with time and became more habitable). In the agriculture age, the most important driver of your economy was how much grain you could grow. Northern Europe and Japan/ Korea/ Mongolia had limitations in growing enormous quantity of grains due to climatic conditions unlike places like Egypt, Iraq, the Indian subcontinent etc… Thus in the medieval era they were poorer. Even with Europe Germany/ Scandinavia though ample in water could not compete with say Italy in food production due to climatic restrictions. A similar case can be made for Japan vs China/ Indonesia etc… There was no way England could compete with the Ganges of India in food production even though England had good soil quality. Similarly Scotland could not compete with England because of the topography of the land (more mountains). That explains why England has about 10 times the population as Scotland and was more wealthier. Take this difference and multiply it many times to get the difference between Northern Europe/ Japan Korea on one hand and the Middle zone (India, Middle East etc..) Besides Northern Europeans and North East Asian were located at the edge of Eurasia unlike people in the middle zone and thus could not gain wealth from trade passing through their territories. So even if these populations of the North had higher IQs and other favourable traits they were poorer and more backward than the middle IQ populations in the middle zone.
The Industrial revolution changed all that. Now wealth creation was moving from Agriculture to industry and wealth creation was no longer tied to the amount of grain they could grow in their lands. And it was now the high IQ cold climate populations of Europe and North East Asia finally got their advantage over the Middle Zoners. Also thanks to innovations made in transportation technology in Britain (steam ships), moving resources from the tropics to the temperate zone for manufacturing was easy and cheap. This is what explains why India or the Middle East were so advanced in the agricultural age but now are failures compared to Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc… and the Northern European settled places like North America, Australia, New Zealand in this technological age.
Pumpkin what color are you hair ? and your eyes ?