[Update pumpkin person, Nov 6, 2016: Commenters exposed a mistake in this article, which I indicated as corrected via a crossed line through the original error]
When the prudish Victorians first discovered the Bushmen, they were disgusted by the obscene levels of nudity, enormous genitalia, elongated labia, and colossal secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and buttocks. For this, the Bushmen were punished, humiliated and exploited. One Bushwoman nicknamed the Hottentot Venus was paraded in front of circus goers and laughed at.
Victorians already looked down on blacks for living in a land full of apes and for being the color of darkness, but when you added what was seen as such depraved over-the-top sexuality to the mix, many felt the entire Negroid race needed to be punished, and slavery racism became especially viscous.
Today many African Americans are disgusted by how their bushwoman sister was treated, but some, like hip-hop community, continue to degrade black female sexuality for the entertainment of white suburban teenaged boys. Indeed sexual icon Beyoncé can so relate to the hotentot Venus that she wants to play her in a movie.
Morphologically, the bushmen were considered an extreme form of Negroid, and Cavalli-Sforza also lumped them into the Negroid race based on lineage. Yet new lineage research suggests the incipient Negroid race may have split into two at a far earlier date than Cavalli-Sforza may have thought. According to the West Hunter blog:
The Bushmen (and probably African Pygmies as well) apparently split off earlier than any other human population, something like 200,000 years ago. Some Bushmen among the Ju’/hoansi, show low or even zero admixture with other groups. How they managed to have so little gene flow with other Africans for such a long time is a mystery to me, but that’s what the stats say…
This long separation doesn’t necessarily mean that Bushmen ave the most divergent phenotypes (although thinking about it, they probably are, what with steatopygia , the tablier egyptienne, etc) – strength and direction of selection are important, not just time. But all else equal, more time allows greater changes.
This doesn’t mean that the Bushmen are what early homo sap was like – they’ve been evolving too – but we ought to be able to learn quite a bit about changes over the past couple of hundred thousand years by investigating genetic differences between the Bushmen and everybody else. For example, 200 k years ago, our ancestors didn’t have what it takes to out-compete Neanderthals and other archaics on their home grounds, judging by the fact that they didn’t manage it back then. By 40k years ago we could and did – but that isn’t necessarily the case for Bushmen, a separate branch. Although, since Bushmen and Pygmies seem to have picked up a few percent of their genome from some very divergent group of archaic humans, perhaps they too developed the ability to kick archaic ass. But we don’t know if they did it in the same way, and it probably happened in fairly familiar African environments, instead of ice age Eurasia.
So what are their IQs?
In his 2006 book Race Differences in Intelligence, scholar Richard Lynn shocked the World by claiming Bushmen had an average IQ of only 54. To put that in perspective, the average white has an IQ of 100. IQs below 70 are considered EMR (Educable (mild) Mental Retardation) and IQs below about 55 are considered TMR (Trainable (moderate) Mental Retardation). So to describe the IQ of an entire sub-race of people as TMR was shocking indeed.
Lynn based the figure partly on the fact that a group of bushmen allegedly scored about 13 points lower than mainstream black Africans on a culture reduced IQ test. Since the mainstream blacks were mostly illiterate, Lynn felt it fair to compare them to the Bushmen. Since mainstream blacks are known to average IQ 67 (once they become used to paper and pencil tests), it thus seemed reasonable to deduce that the Bushmen would score 54 if they too became used to paper and pencil tests (13 points lower).
However based on the IQs of African Americans reared in upper class white homes, I estimate that mainstream blacks (sometimes called Congoids) have a genetic IQ of 85, suggesting the divergent blacks like Bushmen (sometimes called Capoids) have a genetic IQ of 72.
The IQ of South Africa’s Coloureds
Using a novel approach, I decided that one could recover the genetic IQ of the Bushmen from examining the IQs of South Africa’s Coloreds. This can be done because the Coloured are 25% white, 25% Indian, 25% Congoid, and 25% Capoid. The Coloureds have an average IQ of 83, only 3 points lower than the 86 average IQ of South Africa’s Indians.
Since dark caucasoids have a genetic IQ of around 90, and since largely the dumbest Indians probably became indentured labourers in South Africa, it can be assumed that South African Indians have reached their genetic IQ. And since, like the Coloureds, the whites would give them good environments so that they would side with them against the native blacks, the Coloureds have probably also reached their genetic potential with an IQ of 83. The whites in South Africa score 94, somewhat lower than the Northwestern European mean of 100, perhaps because largely the most racist whites colonized and stayed in South Africa.
Only the black South Africans (IQ 65) are way below their genetic potential, but as mentioned above, the mean genetic IQ of Congoids is likely 85. So assuming the genetic IQ of Coloureds is 83, and further assuming that IQ reflects an averaging of 86 (indentured Indian genetic IQ), 94 (apartheid white genetic IQ) and 85 (Congoid genetic IQ), simple algebra tells us the Bushmen have a genetic IQ of roughly 70 (consistent with Lynn’s claim that they are about 1 SD below the mean of mainstream black Africans).
Behavioral Modernity
In a recent post I blogged about Richard Klein and Spencer Wells’s theory, that sometime around 70,000 years ago, there was a sudden genetic change in Africa that produced behavioral modernity and allowed humans to spread all over the globe, replacing their archaic cousins like the Neanderthals with epic speed. Several readers expressed skepticism about such a sudden change in behavior, but if experts as respected as Klein and Spencer believe it, there’s probably some truth to it, even if the theory has been exaggerated.
I now believe the huge 10-15 point IQ gap between Bushmen/pygmies and other “blacks” (i.e. congoids and australoids) perfectly preserves this sudden jump like a living fossil record. Prior to about 70,000 years ago, all modern humans probably had a genetic IQ similar to Bushmen (about 70) and then around 70,000 years, something snapped, and the genetic IQ was raised to 80 (australoid level) producing behavioral modernity.
Those behaviorally modern humans who stayed Africa, evolved a bit more to IQ 85, but those who faced the tough struggle of the ice age, evolved well into the triple digits in some cases.
Meanwhile the Bushmen and pygmies achieved only anatomical modernity. Behavioral modernity never came, partly explaining why the never acquired agriculture liked the Congoids, let alone developed it like the Australoids.
Holy shit. I just woke up and that picture scared the shit out of me.
The Hottentot are the perfect example of how the body regulates body fat. Hey Hottentots, eat less and move more, then you’ll lose weight!!
Sforza says that other than the differences between the Bushmen and Pygmies, the genetic variance in Africa is small. It’s from a Steve Sailer article on 7 things about race.
“and other “blacks” (i.e. congoids and australoids)”
I lold.
“…and slavery became especially viscous.”
Seems unlikely – the slave trade was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1807, and the Hottentot Venus arrived in London in 1810.
Who sculpted Oprah*** 😡 😖
LOL! I’m impressed you can be so funny in a language you can hardly write in
Shows above average IQ
”Victorians already looked down on blacks for living in a land full of apes and for being the color of darkness, but when you added what was seen as such depraved over-the-top sexuality to the mix, many felt the entire Negroid race needed to be punished, and slavery became especially viscous.”
Which time was it**
They may don’t developed agriculture because they don’t have the necessity to do it. The necessity has been the soul of evolution, awwwn or niet!! 😉
“Several readers expressed skepticism about such a sudden change in behavior, but if experts as respected as Klein and Spencer believe it, there’s probably some truth to it, even if the theory has been exaggerated.”
I’d be careful with that kind of reasoning, It seems flawed. Behavioral modernity started at least 100,000 years ago when we entered the middle east but it was probably before that, we were already more intelligent than or at least on par with neanderthals but i think population bottlenecks caused cro magnon to appear and wipe out all other archaic hominids. I do not think the IQ patterns we witness today are reflective of the ones in our hunter/gatherer past. At least until very recently and It’s not because if the reasons you think.
I’d be careful with that kind of reasoning, It seems flawed. Behavioral modernity started at least 100,000 years ago when we entered the middle east
But the people who entered the middle east 100 K ago died out. The reason people think behavioral modernity started later is there was no SUCCESSFUL exit of Africa for modern humans until about 70 K ago.
And as far as I know, there’s no real drawings until well after 50 K. There’s the occasional doodle or X marks, but no artistic renderings of actual people, animals, physical objects or scenes.
I’m probably going to have to revise my bushman theory because at least they’ve produced true art.
but it was probably before that, we were already more intelligent than or at least on par with neanderthals
But neanderthals probably lacked behavioral modernity too, despite recent claims to the contrary. They never produced true drawings either, and they had hundreds of thousands of years
but i think population bottlenecks caused cro magnon to appear and wipe out all other archaic hominids. I do not think the IQ patterns we witness today are reflective of the ones in our hunter/gatherer past. At least until very recently and It’s not because if the reasons you think.
Well you don’t believe in the climate theory for IQ differences so I’m not surprised you think race differences are recent
“But neanderthals probably lacked behavioral modernity too, despite recent claims to the contrary. They never produced true drawings either, and they had hundreds of thousands of years”
Neanderthals buried their dead, among other things. They were pretty ‘advanced’ for their time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=neanderthal+art&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAz8a30JXQAhVpxYMKHRPdBAIQ_AUICCgB&biw=1536&bih=759
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-made-some-of-europe-s-oldest-art-1.15805
“Well you don’t believe in the climate theory for IQ differences so I’m not surprised you think race differences are recent”
They are. See “Our Magnificent Bastard Race” by Razib Khan.
“But the people who entered the middle east 100 K ago died out. The reason people think behavioral modernity started later is there was no SUCCESSFUL exit of Africa for modern humans until about 70 K ago.”
Dying out doesn’t mean they were not behaviorally “modern”. Neanderthals were behaviorally modern.
“And as far as I know, there’s no real drawings until well after 50 K. There’s the occasional doodle or X marks, but no artistic renderings of actual people, animals, physical objects or scenes.”
They still had forms of artistic expression. If you go to the wikipedia page on behavioral modernity it actually has a list that on what it considers as such. Actual drawing and figurines are simply a more complex version of this kind of art. Cro magnon was more intelligent than neanderthals or african homo sapiens but all 3 had behavioral modernity.
“Well you don’t believe in the climate theory for IQ differences so I’m not surprised you think race differences are recent”
The archaeological and biological record simply do not confirm it. Climate does enforce intelligence in the sense that you had iterated: It’s stems to food allocation which is directly related to varying climate but genes themselves are responsible for the intelligence-boosting so when these extreme shifts in climate occur populations are constricted and that’s when the mutation rate increase and new gene expression flourishes. Socialization had a more gradual effect. It’s not as simply as “cold weather= higher g” This is a recent phenomena Cold and hot weather only affect intelligence through bergman’s principle and circuit redundancy. Effectively causing a social arms race but this even stems to food because these complex social facilities generate from a need for extreme organization skills in acquiring food when it is scarce. Survival itself drives all evolution so climate and socialization drive encephalization.
Dying out doesn’t mean they were not behaviorally “modern”. Neanderthals were behaviorally modern.
It depends how you define behavioral modernity. The term behavioral modernity is often used by those who want to explain what made Out of Africa humans so “superior” they replaced everyone who got in their way (with minimal interbreeding). The anatomically modern humans (AMH) who left Africa early didn’t have the ability to replace anyone.
They still had forms of artistic expression. If you go to the wikipedia page on behavioral modernity it actually has a list that on what it considers as such. Actual drawing and figurines are simply a more complex version of this kind of art. Cro magnon was more intelligent than neanderthals or african homo sapiens but all 3 had behavioral modernity.
I’m now convinced that the old idea of behavioral modernity as a binary variable was wrong. Clearly it was continuous as Neanderthals and early AMH clearly showed some level of symbolic thought. Yet at the same time, the difference between only being able to draw an X, and being able to draw recognizable creatures was a pretty huge leap.
The archaeological and biological record simply do not confirm it. Climate does enforce intelligence in the sense that you had iterated: It’s stems to food allocation which is directly related to varying climate but genes themselves are responsible for the intelligence-boosting so when these extreme shifts in climate occur populations are constricted and that’s when the mutation rate increase and new gene expression flourishes. Socialization had a more gradual effect. It’s not as simply as “cold weather= higher g” This is a recent phenomena Cold and hot weather only affect intelligence through bergman’s principle and circuit redundancy. Effectively causing a social arms race but this even stems to food because these complex social facilities generate from a need for extreme organization skills in acquiring food when it is scarce. Survival itself drives all evolution so climate and socialization drive encephalization.
I guarantee, if we took a bunch of people in the summer and stranded them in some Northern forest without clothing or any other modern amenities, by the winter a lot of them would be dead and the average IQ of the survivors would be elevated. Now you might argue the same thing would happen if you dropped them in tropical Africa (true, but perhaps not to the same degree), but keep in mind that primates have had millions of years to adapt to tropical Africa. More intelligence is required when you’re placed in a NEW environment, regardless of whether that new environment is warmer or colder than the old one.
“It depends how you define behavioral modernity. The term behavioral modernity is often used by those who want to explain what made Out of Africa humans so “superior” they replaced everyone who got in their way (with minimal interbreeding). The anatomically modern humans (AMH) who left Africa early didn’t have the ability to replace anyone.”
I always assumed it was simply the definition of when we supposedly become modernly intelligent. There is no evidence to suggest we were not capable of taking over neanderthals. In fact we were already doing it 75,000 years ago:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150224-africa-stone-tools-modern-humans-arabia-emiran-nubian-origins/
“I’m now convinced that the old idea of behavioral modernity as a binary variable was wrong. Clearly it was continuous as Neanderthals and early AMH clearly showed some level of symbolic thought. Yet at the same time, the difference between only being able to draw an X, and being able to draw recognizable creatures was a pretty huge leap.”
True but art is not only drawing, I don’t know about african HSS but neanderthal may have been a bit too “busy” to be bothered with art. I speculate they were very pragmatic. Maybe analogous to east asians today(not in intelligence).
“I guarantee, if we took a bunch of people in the summer and stranded them in some Northern forest without clothing or any other modern amenities, by the winter a lot of them would be dead and the average IQ of the survivors would be elevated. Now you might argue the same thing would happen if you dropped them in tropical Africa (true, but perhaps not to the same degree), but keep in mind that primates have had millions of years to adapt to tropical Africa. More intelligence is required when you’re placed in a NEW environment, regardless of whether that new environment is warmer or colder than the old one.”
Well no shit if you didn’t give them clothing they would freeze to death. What? Did you think homo sapiens just walked into europe without any kind of protection or prior understanding of what is essential to survive? They were probably relieved greatly that they didn’t have to worry as much about predators, disease, parasites or heat stroke when they entered europe. You’re still agreeing with me though,by your logic then even in hotter environments, temperate ones and, deserts should produce the same or at least similar results as an entirely cold one. if all you’re arguing is that climate variability causes bottlenecks which selected for higher g (which some studies claim to have actually refuted: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1599/2130 ) then I agree, but not the coldwinter/r/k selection theory.
Most of primates living in intertropical areas.
Humans inherited their skills,,, adapted to live in intertropical areas. Based on this ”logic”, at priore, would be more difficult to adapt to new environments and new types of skills must have been developed/required.
Humans have their abstract capacity to predict the behavioral pattern of the environments while most of non-human animals, primates included, have not so ‘well” developed skills. The greatest is this proto-rational capacity, more mentally developed/evolved will be the human being, more evolutionary distance from the intermediary hybrid primate-human populations**
Based on out of africa theory geo-genetic distance the first split was between ”africans” and ”non-africans”, the first reduction of genetic diversity and/or mutational load and it seems happen in the height of current desertic lands… current.
The geographical distance is not the only way to measure/compare genetic differences between human populations.
”What? Did you think homo sapiens just walked into europe without any kind of protection or prior understanding of what is essential to survive?”
Remember in the pre historic period humans had the knowledge only about their own immediate/sorrounded environment and nothing more.
So i don’t think they ”walked” into Europe but ”to explore” it, exactly when europeans invaded ”Americas’. And they had the help of amerindians and their knowledge about the (subjectively) new places (for them).
The most interesting is why (some-to-many of) humans did not stay in one place*
Curious and courageous ”genes” (openess) may help us to understand, l’esprit d’aventure.
Maybe many of the pre historical geniuses were interested in explore new places as well we have today people who are engaged to explore the space.
Australoids never had agricuture as far. as I. know
But Papua New Guineans did and Richard Lynn lumps them together with Australian aboriginals in his analysis.
They didn’t develop it until recently.
Sorry, but there is some absolute crap-logic in this piece. “However based on the IQs of African Americans reared in upper class white homes, I estimate that mainstream blacks (sometimes called Congoids) have a genetic IQ of 85, suggesting the divergent blacks like Bushmen (sometimes called Capoids) have a genetic IQ of 72.” ABSURD! Apart from the convoluted thinking, how can you possibly ignore the fact that African Americans are only 73% African? Rather THAT factor determines their relatively higher IQ than that of “Congoids’ Corollary, whites in the US deep south have the lowest IQ of “white” US citizens. They have also the largest portion of African genes…..Likewise, in particular the white Afrikaners have a significant African ancestral component, This genetics explanation also far better explains the white South African, low average IQ of 94, instead of your plain stupid: “perhaps because largely the most racist whites colonized and stayed in South Africa”. Your entire piece is very racist by definition. So this would “perhaps” explain why a racist (you) can come to such unintelligent conclusions! LOL. I could go on, but I do applaud you for tackling such a “sensitive”, non-PC issue as Race & Intelligence.
how can you possibly ignore the fact that African Americans are only 73% African? Rather THAT factor determines their relatively higher IQ than that of “Congoids
The white admixture may make them genetically smarter than the average Congoid but the fact that their ancestors were slaves may suggest they’re genetically duller than the average Congoid, so it may cancel out
It’s impossible to know for sure, but yes, slaves are hardly selected for intelligence by their masters – so it may cancel out. That said, I do think the white admixture has a big influence. As to how big of a difference depends on if the white admixture was mostly Irish (90 IQ) or Anglo American (106 IQ).
The point is the smartest Africans likely escaped slavery, either because of their high status or cause they knew where to hide, leaving the less smart ones as slaves
I am a retired lawyer and analyst. The first thing I noticed is the lack of discussion re biases inherent in IQ test. IQ test are targeted at and assumed that everyone taking it have the same kind of primary and secondary socialization and education. Even pattern recognition are based on those construct …. for example, if the IQ test were designed by the kids today who can find program on your smart phone and reprogrammed them without you even knowing that they did, how do you think our grandparents would score on that scale? Exposure to experiences has a lot with how a question that is supposed to test your IQ is interpreted and the outcome of these tests.
Effective communications across cultures can be challenging even when everyone speak the same language but have different life experience let alone when there is no common language or life experience.
Having recently met the San people (aka Kalahari bushmen) on a recent trip to Botswana, I get the feeling that if they were to design an equivalent of an IQ test and we were the ones being rated, we would score not that high either ….
Many inaccuracies in your article. You claim that South African Coloureds are a composite of each a quarter white European, black African, Indian and Khoisan. That’s false!
Let me correct this for you: the Indian indentured labourers did not really mix a lot with the other South African ethnicities, so there is very little Indian in the Coloured population. There is however a significant Malay-Indonesian (South Asian) portion. Some Coloured communities are in essence Malay in origin, some have a quite even percentage of Khoisan and Cape Dutch ancestry and others are descendants of Khoisan and Ngunis (Xhosas) that have later intermarried with other Coloureds who were primarily of Cape Dutch and Khoisan descent.
You also fail to understand that the Black population (what you refer to as Congoid, often the term Bantu is used) of South Africa itself has significant admixture with specifically Khoisan, but also (to a much smaller degree) with white Europeans (maybe 2%).
Mixed race people were only classified as Coloured, when their visible features tended more to the non-Bantu (Congoid) side, while mixed race people with more prominent Bantu features were classified as Black under Apartheid. Those were often arbitrary decisions. Eg, people of mixed Khoisan and Bantu ancestry were most often classified as Black, while people of mixed (50/50) white and Khoisan or white and Bantu heritage were more likely to be acknowledged as Coloured.