According to scholar J.P. Rushton, there are at least 3 major races: Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids. There is enormous diversity within all of these races, but Mongoloids tend to rank highest on all the more advanced traits: brain size, IQ, law abidingness, mental stability, while Negroids rank highest on the primitive traits: genitalia size, breast and buttocks size, testosterone, athleticism, musical rhythm, personality, while Caucasoids are intermediate on all traits. Rushton mapped his ranking onto molecular genetics, showing Negroids branched off the human evolutionary tree prematurely (200,000 years ago), followed by Caucasoids (110,000 years ago), and lastly Mongoloids (41,000 years ago). Rushton argued that evolution is progressive and some populations are more advanced than others: Mongoloids > Caucasoids > Negroids.
Although Rushton limited most of his analysis to East Asians, Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans, I think virtually all of humanity can be lumped into one of his 3 main races, as I did in this pie chart (all numbers in millions)
Now the Mongoloid race includes some lower IQ groups such as Southeast Asians (genetic IQ 96?), the Pacific Islanders (genetic IQ 94?), the Arctic people(genetic IQ 91?), and the Native Americans (genetic IQ 89?) but since the vast majority of Mongoloids are the genetically superior Orientals (genetic IQ 105?), the entire Mongoloid race has a mean genetic IQ of 102.
Now the Caucasoid race can be divided into whites (Europeans and their descendants) and non-white Caucasoids (the people from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf States, the Near East, Turkey, and North Africa). While the entire white population likely has an average genetic IQ of 99, I estimate that non-white Caucasoids have an average genetic IQ of 90. Since the vast majority of Caucasoids are non-white, the average genetic IQ for the entire Caucasoid race would be 93 (9 points below Mongoloids).
Lastly there are the Negroids. I would divide the Negroids into 3 main subraces: The Congoids (genetic IQ 80?), the Capoids (who Richard Lynn lumps together with the pygmies) (genetic IQ 67?), and the Australoids (genetic IQ 73?). Although the Australoids show great (neutral) genetic distance from sub-Saharan Africans, I would still classify them as Negroid because they have genetically preserved the phenotype of black Africa, especially in places like the Andaman islands. Since virtually all Negroids are Congoids who have an estimated genetic potential of IQ 80, the entire Negroid race probably has a genetic IQ of 80, 13 points below the entire Caucasoid race, and 22 points below the entire Mongoloid race.
I wouldn’t call South East Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans Mongoloid.
None of these group have prominent epicanthal fold eyes – the single most important sign out of extreme cold-selection. Accordingly, none of them have large brain size and all other sorts of physical-mental developement traits that Rushton mentioned in order to match up with high IQ. So something must be VERY wrong with this categorisation.
South East Asians are, IMO : local Australoid-prone aboriginals + minority of Mongoloid (mostly ethnic Chinese down under during the chaos/internal wars of Imperial China in recent times)/ Austrloid mix + tiny minority of ethnic East Asians, mostly ethnic Chinese who have been living there mostly since 16th century on.
Pacific Islanders: they’re more like a kind of Australoid (e.g. I just can’t visualise what the heck the Maori have anything to do with the Mongoloid), with some East Asian migrants largely in the Hawaii.
Native Americans, however, according to some recent research, if I recall well, have actually more European/Caucasoid genes than Mongoloid.
For me the Mongoloid are in : China/HK/Taiwan, Korea, Japan, a big part of Vietnam and Mongolia, circa 80% of Singapore, 35% of the population of Malaysia – the ethnic Chinese tehre (i.e. the Muslim Malays by and large, similar to oboriginal Indonesians, are more non-White Caucasoid , or non-White Caucasoid/Australoid mix, than Mongoloid. wtf?), and some ethnic Chinese in Thailand, Laos, Philippines, Indonsia, etc SE Asia.
All the Mongoloid races (Islanders, Native Americans, SE Asians) have epicanthic folds. I’ve seen it personally in all three. There’s different degrees of epicanthic-ness, though (Asians often have surgery to get the degree of the eye fold reduced), and NE Asians tend to be most epicanthic.
Australoids are distinct enough from Sub-Saharans to be included in their own category. Although Bushmen and Pygmies are also genetically distant and I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to include them as Negroid or not.
Maoris are definitely not Australoid. They might have some Melanesian admixture, but they’re most definitely descended from the same original sea-faring tribe that left SE Asian several thousand years ago that Polynesians are also descended from.
Putting Congoids, Sanoids and Australoids in a same category it’s like putting Europeans and East Asians together.
@LJ
How many Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, SE Asians you personally saw with epicanthic folds? I personally saw some Finns, Swedes and Dutch, yes, Swedes and Dutch, with epicanthic folds, too. Are they all Mongoloid then?
There’re many Pacific Islanders, Native Americans(who has Mongoloid genes, but more Europeans genes -perhaps due to Europeans’ entry into N America many many thousands years ago), SE Asians, particularly SE Asians, with epicanthic folds, true. Yet they are the tiny minority of the population, with most of them being ethnic Chinese migrants throughout centries, with others being Chinese-SE Asian mix.
The vast majority of SE Asians – the “locals”, however, have giant round eye shapes anything but epicanthic, alongwith all the other major physical-mental traits as small as body odor, hormones level, body development maturity etc, let alone brain size/IQ/Personality, streets away from the Mongoloid. To call them Mongoloid , somehow by the main stream academics, is one of the biggest blunders out there IMO. It doesn’t even pass Panda’s laugh test to be honest.
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.
Since almost every Caucasian in the world is closer to 10-25% 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.
Now let’s take a look at the testosterone claims made above. Those are wrong as well. Indo-Aryans, particularly North Indian higher castes and Iranians have the higest average tesosterone among all ethnic groups and races. Here is the actual link to the compendium of 150 scientific peer-reviewed studies that came to the aforementioned conclusion: https://ethnicmuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ethnic-testosterone1.pdf
And the ranking of testosterone from the highest to lowest? Here is is: https://ethnicmuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/t-diff.jpg
Except for their wonderfully distinctive facial characteristics, the physiology of the three main races is the least thing of interest, though it does clearly influence their propensity to consanguinate. More profound in this regard is the proportionate influence within them of the THREE PRINCIPLES underlying phenomenological reality (“Darkness,” “Anger,” or Death;” “Light, “Love,” or “Life;” and “the World Spirit,” “Vanity,” or ”Good and Evil Intertwined”). The far-famed idealist Jacob Boehme (d. 1624) (“JB”) interestingly connects this deep conceptual intuition to the anthropogenic narrative of Moses concerning the post-diluvian re-creation of Man. Readers can find an analysis of that story in JB’s ’Mysterium Magnum’ (1624).
The three Principles in racial Man, then, are not mutually exclusive but have a tendency to differentially PREDOMINATE. On our reading, JB does not disclose why this should have been the result of the re-creation and subsequent racial deployment of Man. However, it is implied in the fact that three–and only three–Principles underlie the whole of reality. (Animals only represent TWO of the Principles: the third, the Principle of Light–is inaccessible to them except in its worldly reflection as the 3rd Principle.) Man, however, is destined to represent his own triadic basis and the primordial regenerative conflict of the three Principles, as well as historically, within the space-time into which Man was thrust after ejection from Paradise. Therefore, the fullest development of these conflicts within Man, the purpose of which is to offer within the March of History the possibility of the rectification of individual human spirits, can best be worked out in a living SPIRITUAL CONFLICT. This accounts for the tendency of the three races to contradict each other in the spiritual dimensions of physiology and especially in fundamental behaviors.
Unlike the post-diluvial re-creation, the original Creation took place within an infinite process, the result of which was a trail of PSEUDO-HISTORY that is studied, without much comprehension, by so-called modern paleontology which, in failing to explain the temporal origin and deployment of the primary racial physical characteristics, has taken upon itself an inexplicable evidentiary burden. The re-creation of Man therefore resulted in a REAL HISTORY, seen beneath our feet in the paleontological strata of the Holocene, continuing to the present day. Why the Deluge itself did not leave a comparable trace (although some religious people assert unconvincingly that it did) is still to be explained in the deep theory of idealist cosmogony. We believe the answer lies its true meaning as a PROCESS WITHIN PROCESS and lying, therefore, outside of all history, even pseudo-history. Of interest here is JB’s long and fascinating discussion of the meaning of the Scriptural assertion that the Creator had come to “regret” the original creation of Man.
Correction: In the 2nd paragraph, instead of “the third–the Principle of Light” please read “the second, the Principle of Light”