In South Africa, Whites average IQ 94, Indians average IQ 86, Coloureds average IQ 83, and Blacks average IQ 65. Perhaps because of malnutrition, Whites in South Africa are 6 points below their genetic IQ of 100 (i.e. the IQ they would have had if reared in the First World). By contrast, the more severe malnutrition of post-apartheid leaves Blacks scoring 15 points below their genetic IQ of 80.
I suspect Indians in South Africa live in environments similar to whites and thus are also 6 points below their genetic potential. This gives Indians a genetic IQ of 86 + 6 = 92.
Earlier I estimated Indians have a genetic IQ of 86, but this is too close to the black genetic IQ of 80. Indians feel superior to blacks and Indians are to blacks as Ashkenazi Jews are to gentile whites in the sense that they dominate them entrepreneurially to the point where Idi Amin through them out of Uganda. Similarly gentile whites get hostile to Ashkenazi Jews for dominating Western businesses and media.
So if Ashkenazi Jews are genetically 10 IQ points smarter than white gentiles, Indians should be genetically about 10 points higher than pure blacks. Of course not all of the economic superiority of Indians and Jews can be explained by high IQ; a lot of it can be explained by superior social organization and networking.
My celebrity friend Robert Lindsay is a big critic of India, and he explains why here.
Why malnutrition make Indians score only 6 points below their genetic average just like Whites ?
It doesn’t make sense because Indian are poore than Whites, so the malnutrition should affect them more.
Poorer*
Well South African whites are 6 points below their genetic potential.
South African blacks are 15 points below their genetic potential.
So let’s say Indians and Coloureds are 10.5 points below their genetic potential (half way between both)
That would give Indians a genetic IQ of 86 + 10.5 = 97 and Coloureds a genetic IQ of 83 + 10.5 = 94
Coloureds are roughly a mix of 25% Indian, 25% white, 25% Congoid and 25% Capoid
If Indians have a genetic IQ of 97, and we already know that whites, Congoids and Capoids have genetic IQs of 100, 80, and 67, then the expected genetic IQ of Coloureds would be:
0.25(97) + 0.25(100) + 0.25(80) + 0.25(67) = 86
It doesn’t add up to 94.
But if Indians and Coloureds have the same malnutrition as whites (6 point deduction) then Indians have a genetic IQ of 86 + 6 = 92 and Coloureds have a genetic IQ of 83 + 6 = 89
The expected genetic IQ of Coloureds becomes
0.25(92) + 0.25(100) + 0.25(80) + 0.25(67) = 85
This almost adds up to 89, and if you allow Coloureds a 4 point bonus for hybrid vigor, it fits perfectly
So my guess is that whites made sure the Indians and Coloureds had as much nutrition as they did to keep them on their side against the blacks.
What is the IQ of Indian tribals like the Paniya or Irula? These are groups with the highest ASI. For example, Moorjani et al estimates Paniya ANI at 17%. Which means that their ancestral South Indian proportion is in the 80’s.
We need to look at what sort of Indians are found in South Africa. Are they merchant types?
Honestly, every subgroup needs to be studied separately.
From a racial standpoint the Kashmiri Pandits have the highest ANI. Tamil Brahmins are among the lowest( for Brahmins that is–they are still one of the more caucasoid groups). This is the disparity in terms of admixture we see in India.
So, why is this disparity not applicable in terms of IQ?
Well I’m assuming Indians in South Africa are roughly representative of India’s overall gene pool or at least of the average Indian. If that assumption is wrong, then my estimate can’t be generalized.
Honestly, if the Indian IQ is to be averaged, it may end up being way lower.
A lot of tribal types do not have access to schools due to poverty. So IQ from that segment probably has not been measured.
Another comment. We all know that East Asians have the highest Neanderthal admixture among Eurasians. People have been making the assertion that due to Australoid admixture, India will have lower IQ.
Then explain the East Asian neanderthal situation.
It is pretty much known now that the Japanese have a very Papuan-like ancestry, or Australoid if you prefer. In fact some ancient Japanese DNA tend to be shifted towards Southeast Asia.
Yet, from what I see, the Japanese were not negatively impacted by these admixtures from an IQ standpoint.
Japan had exposure to the ice age which would have driven the average IQ way up, and eliminated any australoid phenotype.
Well, I can see why getting rid of Australoid traits would be important for Brahmins. They wanted to maintain the status quo. Meaning, the caste system has them on top. To stay on top, you need to use your intelligence a little bit.
The Brahmins are probably one big reason why India remained a majority Hindu country. Both Muslims and the British failed to change that.
By the way Pumpkin, the Caucasoid ancestry that Brahmins have is steppe ancestry. Is this white or non-white caucasoid ancestry? The Indo European language we know came from the Pontic Caspian steppes.
Also, Andronovo scythians were known to have blonde and blue eyes. Supposedly, Indo-Iranian languages came from the Andronovo culture.
What happened was the White Caucasoids mixed with Non White Caucasoids as well as indigenous Indian population to create present-day Indo-Aryans.
What I am saying is, in your future calculations you may want to take this into account. It is not a simple mix of non white Caucasoid and Australoid.
Japanese came from Chinese who are already been exposed to the ice age. The native of the Japan are Ainu and actual Japanese have a little Ainu admixture which make their IQ being a little lower than Han Chinese.
Pumpkin, I have seen that you are employing a lot of time the term “sociopath” but not often the term “psychopath”. You are also often talking about “high fonctionning sociopath”.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/02/12/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/
According to this article you are wrong to use this term of sociopath, because psychopathy is a biological trouble, and you can be a psychopath without looking dangerous at all.
I would like to have a clarification on the subject.
I like to keep things simple, so to me the terms psychopathic and sociopathic just mean evil. Now if you believe folks are born evil you tend to say “psychopath” while if you believe society makes people evil, you say “sociopath”.
But I believe folks are born evil, yet I still prefer the term sociopath, because the term psychopath gets confused with psychotic, which means crazy.
I don’t believe the whites in South Africa were malnourished – see for instance:
“Interestingly, when my British descendents arrived in SA during the 1800s, the average height of an English man was below 1,68m. A century and a half later, SA white male average heights in the 1998 survey were 1,77m. In the UK they were 1,744m.”
They exploited the resources of the country and lived in a lot more comfort on average than say an American or Canadian – even if they had a lower GDP, due to purchasing power it went a lot further.
Yes but that is not the case now.
By the way, how do you explain the IQ of Bhutan (which is at 80)? It appears that the ice age did not help them much. It is well known that they came from Tibet.
Not large enough population, I guess.
Yes, cold climate is not enough to get an IQ above 100. You also need a large non-isolated population to get access to novel mutations. In addition, the Bhutan people likely suffer from sub-optimum nutrition and thus are well below their genetic potential, assuming they really do score 80 (i’ve never heard that)
Pingback: What do Indians and gays have in common? | Pumpkin Person
I’ll just copy-and-paste a comment I left on another post. I think it fits better as a response to this post.
Let’s be conservative and suppose that India’s genetic IQ is likely in the 90-95 range. Malnutrition in India is on par with Subsaharan Africa. We know American blacks score >15 points higher than African Americans despite having only 20 % white admixture on average.
Low 90s is not really that low by global standards.
Consider some European nations (Lynn’s data)
Portugal – 95
Russia – 97
Greece – 92
Romania- 94
Serbia- 89!!
France – 98
Ukraine – 97
Bulgaria – 93
Bosnia and Herzegovina- 90
Guyana – 87
Guyana is split between East Indians and Africans. It’s a third world country. If Blacks there have an average IQ of 75-80(which seems reasonable) , then Indian IQ should be in the 90s range. And keep in mind that Indians who ended up there are from the peasant/labour class. Most of them are lower castes and from the poorest states in India (UP/Bihar). Bihar is especially bad even by Indian standards and has horrible malnutrition and poverty.
The bottom line is that India’s IQ, in a relative sense, is really not as low as one would think.
The Indians in guyana are poor
This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals — this is pseudoscience and completely inaccurate. Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics, and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text, but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.
Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another; in other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature, depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry, which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves. They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India, who are not even a part of the Caste system to begin with, NO other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg
http://archive.org/stream/racesofeurope031695mbp#page/n529/mode/2up
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/are-the-people-of-india-caucasians-yes/
It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids — those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation, and this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture — ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is, with different components for different people/castes in India. The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at BEST, a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture, and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves. The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture, and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time; they also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians. In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.
More information here: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1050864&viewfull=1#post1050864
and
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1061499&viewfull=1#post1061499
Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge; in fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are. More here: http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/39141-ASI-%28ancestral-south-indian%29-is-not-related-to-Onge-negritos-australoids?p=1054161&viewfull=1#post1054161
Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all — the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well. It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans. You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only has the latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between AT LEAST four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).
More at link: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html
It has also conclusively shown that ALL populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to HUGE amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1 (see here). In Europe today it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and, intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians, also carry very high ANE, in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI. Here is a graph explaining this in a simple manner: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b_OUyvAOJfo/UH6mOGV0OII/AAAAAAAAG9U/tP3lG_BxQ20/s640/tangledweb.gif
What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are NOT a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids — except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai. According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian — these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports, including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature. It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian, or in other words, from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%). If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole — he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations: http://genomesunzipped.org/2011/02/guest-post-by-razib-khan-my-personal-genome.php
In addition to the Reich et. al paper, and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project (link to the project: http://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/), which is helmed by a genetic expert, and is working in combination with Reich’s data, is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned. According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between Caste/Location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian in nature than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper Castes being the most Caucasian of all — up to 95%. All of the North-West Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India, as well as Pakistan and Nepal. As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.
For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu (also well represented in the States) or the lowest caste Tamils, are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India, (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper Caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the North-West) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian. If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l87nGSIYTP-h7m-VKjB-BZcuEoWdz765nU4f_krOdd4/edit?pli=1#gid=0
For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid in nature, and the E African, San, Pygmy and W African components are all Negroid in nature. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under sampled in the project.
Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and North-West, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything BUT alone. Lets start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on AVERAGE, 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on AVERAGE — so some would be MORE than 21% black, some less. The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed ON AVERAGE. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black ON AVERAGE, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average. So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more Negroid than Caucasoid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers, but I’ll give you a link to the Nat Geo data here: https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/central-asians/
As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmens have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average; However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35 – 56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmens on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenenistan, like the Northern and Eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55% Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid. Even Turkish many people are 10-20% Mongoloid, and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed — up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average. So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, with some leaning more towards Mongoloid, and being on average, 80-85% Caucasian, and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.
Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians. The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.
This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EiT2DbpCI90/VA5ZPZgLHmI/AAAAAAAABVI/iSDLST-Boic/w1001-h199-no/Table_S14.12.png
More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-tangled-web-of-humanity.html
Which itself references this landmark paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037
It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and DOES NOT include SEPARATE, ADDITIONAL East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids due to the Golden Horde and other admixture events. ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper: http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2012/09/06/genetics.112.145037.abstract and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/#.Ve77Xs44JNY
What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population. What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components — one is Caucasian in nature and related to Levantine ancestry, and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America. Therefore,
according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be — which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.
Keeping in mind that in Europe, among Lezgins and Chechens and Ossetians. ANE is in the 23-27%+ range, this means that other Eastern Europeans, not residing in Northern Europe, are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition, and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians. A table with ANE scores from a recent paper: http://i.imgur.com/R70lWOG.png Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did NOT include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry? Well lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns, are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (NOT including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture, which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture and the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range is around Leningrad and other areas around Russia. Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are AT LEAST 13 to 17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12 to 18% East Asian. More info here: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/mongoloid-admixture-in-russians/
Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians and Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way. Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:
Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
Proto West Eurasians + ASI /ANE-like= South Asians and Central and West Asians
Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans
And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid) Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, So the next time you present Indians as being unique in being admixed, or Europeans as being unique in being pure, think again — for that has no basis in reality. The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper Caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most, 18% admixed or less, and thus 82-95% Caucasian.
Pingback: Indians Have a Genetic IQ of 92? | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay
I think the IQ of white is 95, few white countries have 100 or more
Also, refer to Indian people like single race is like refer to americans like race.