If IQ is to be any indicator of the overall success of nations, why is it that successful ancient civilisations were primarily focused in the East rather than the West?
The same holds true for the Western world as well; while the Greeks and Romans were building empires and sophisticated civilisations, northern Europeans were still divided into unorganised tribes and were considered barbarians.
Nowadays, the Germanic people are among the smartest people in the world. How does that come about when they were literally nobodies in the ancient world?
This is why I don't really buy into the whole IQ thing all that much. I think there are a lot of other factors at play that people aren't taking into account.
I'm looking for genuine answers only, no Stormfag theories about how they were all originally blonde-hair, blue-eyed Aryans whose fall was attributed to race-mixing.
>>73097159
I wonder if a successful culture can increase its population's IQ and also a shitty one can keep it down.
>>73097159
The harshness of northern climates bred people with greater critical thinking skills and intellect. The climate also prevented the ability to achieve their potential until technology was sufficiently developed. Since then, the west has dominated
>>73097159
Civilisation spreads? I dont understand what you are asking at all. The cradle of civilisation was in the Middle East, this does not mean the Middle East made more advancements than other areas once civilisation spread
>>73097159
In my opinion it's about the culture, not the IQ. For example, the hard working cultures have always been more developed than the lazy ones.
When they hard working culture starts to fall, their development starts to fall.
Black africans have always been undeveloped because they didn't need to work hard for gathering food and getting warm since they had good temperature and lots of resources.
>>73098142
>In my opinion it's about the culture, not the IQ. For example, the hard working cultures have always been more developed than the lazy ones.
t. lazy Southern European who could be great but choose not to be
>>73098439
>t. lazy Southern European who could be great but choose not to be
True, we wuz kangs when we worked hard. Now we have shitty politicians and that's why we are fucked.
sweden..bro.. you of all people should know this
IQ matters fuck all, there are a ton of variables involved to measure success and even that goal depends of your point of you.
Your country has one of the most educated people on earth and yet you are hellbent on erradicating your way of life and actual say your men (lets be real, the ones that forge destiny) from your society.
>>73097894
I'm saying that if we use the "IQ creates nations logic", then ancient Germanics would be on par with niggers.
>>73098753
>Now we have shitty politicians and that's why we are fucked.
The solution to that is a simple one.
I certainly wouldn't go to a war to intervene in Spain if the people decided to kill off their elite.
>>73097159
>If IQ is to be any indicator of the overall success of nations, why is it that successful ancient civilisations were primarily focused in the East rather than the West?
>
>The same holds true for the Western world as well; while the Greeks and Romans were building empires and sophisticated civilisations, northern Europeans were still divided into unorganised tribes and were considered barbarians.
depends if you trust historians
if you do, why?
Empires, countries, cultures they all rise and fall
>>73097159
I think people like to buy into the IQ thing because, since it's not very understood, it is therefore harder to challenge and/or disprove. The same argument goes for genetics.
Definitely culture and geographical location play into how some groups are able to rise and what major decisions they choose to make.
>>73098753
we also had god and our piety and strong family ties made us go the extra mile
Call it zealotry if youd like but we would wipe anyone of the map that came between god or our family/lands
>>73097159
There being other factors at play doesn't mean IQ is irrelevant. All Europeans pretty much have the same IQ anyways, on average
>I think there are a lot of other factors at play that people aren't taking into account
Who isn't taking them into account? Civilization spreads, northern Europe wasn't densely populated and hadn't been inhabited for as long, that's just logic. People also move, the people of ancient Rome and Greece aren't necessarily related to the people living in those areas today. There were plenty of blonde and blue eyed Roman emperors, for example
>>73098439
>lynn
>>73098949
>this level of delusion
>>73097159
>Nowadays, the Germanic people are among the smartest people in the world. How does that come about when they were literally nobodies in the ancient world?
rapid evolution through constant warfare.
>>73098801
Mainly retards would use that logic, IQ is a more relevant statistic in todays globalized world. Where certain people have all the necessary tools handed to them, yet collectively make nothing of it
>>73099615
I'm not saying IQ is irrelevant; I'm sure it plays a substantial role.
Blonde hair and blue eyes are exclusive to northern Europeans. There are people in the Middle East that have those features as well. Also, why shouldn't we believe that modern Italians and Greeks are descended from those civilisations?
IQ back then is not IQ like now. "G" IQ has been dropping for well over three Centuries, possibly a millenia.
>>73097159
>why is it that successful ancient civilisations were primarily focused in the East rather than the West?
Because East Asians are smarter than Europeans.
Only a mouthbreather on /pol/ thinks IQ is THE most important factor to successful nations
>>73100078
Indo Europeans tribes are obviously related to modern europeans. But Modern Europeans are not those Indo Europeans. Different era, different culture, slightly different biology, different identity.
>>73097159
The original civilizations all occurred around great rivers in temperate regions, where the land was the most fertile, it has nothing to do with IQ.
>>73098142
Australia does pretty well and our culture is quite lazy.
>>73099156
>I think people like to buy into the IQ thing because, since it's not very understood, it is therefore harder to challenge and/or disprove. The same argument goes for genetics.
Well said.
>>73097159
you all assume that evolutionary processes take millions of years
if conditions ever appear that cause only smart men to get all the pussy, their population will become one of the smartest in the world in exactly one generation.
