People in developing countries ‘have lower IQs because their bodies are focused on surviving’

You gotta love these schmucks for continuously ignoring the obvious as to why the majority of Blacks have a lower IQ compared to Caucasians and Asians. Here is another “environmentalist” excuse that they’ve come up with. This study is a joke with so many obvious flaws – even my two-year old nephew would be able to see them. Until people are willing to admit the obvious, then this issue will never go away.

People in developing countries have lower IQs because their bodies divert energy from brainpower to fighting disease, researchers claimed today.

In hot nations blighted by deadly infections, the priority is survival and populations have evolved to develop stronger immune systems rather than intelligence, according to the controversial theory.

Some critics warned the study could become an excuse for racism if it was used to suggest that people in the Third World are not as intelligent as those in cooler, richer climes.

Others pointed out that the ancient Persians, Greeks and Romans lived in hot climates and still boasted extraordinary civilisations.

U.S. researchers claimed their work could explain why national IQ scores vary around the world and are lower in some warmer countries stricken by diseases such as malaria, tetanus and tuberculosis.

Infection could have as important an impact on intelligence as education, diet and wealth, said researcher Randy Thornhill and a team from the University of New Mexico.

Children under five use most of their energy for brain development and this can be restricted if the body has to fight disease, they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

They compared data from worldwide IQ studies with disease maps drawn up by the World Health Organisation and concluded that the higher the level of infectious disease in a country, the lower the average national IQ.

‘The effect of infectious disease on IQ is bigger than any other single factor we looked at,’ said Chris Eppig, lead author on the paper.

Disease is a major sap on the body’s energy, and the brain takes a lot of energy to build. If you don’t have enough, you can’t do it properly.

‘The consequence of this, if we’re right, is that the IQ of a nation will be largely unaffected until you can lift the burden of disease.’

Critics of the study argued there are many different kinds of intelligence that Western academic-based IQ tests fail to measure.

Low IQ does not necessarily equate to stupidity or incompetence, they said. People in hot countries have the intellectual skills to survive in very difficult environments.

The research could be abused to rationalise racism, just as the Nazis perverted scientific study in the 1930s, some critics said.

Experts pointed out that children fighting debilitating disease are likely to miss a lot of school, which could be the real reason for a lower IQ score, not compromised brain development.

Professor Richard Lynn of Ulster University said the picture was complex, with low national IQs partly propagating the spread of infectious diseases.

HIV had a high infection rate in low-IQ nations, he said, because people did not understand how it was contracted and relied on baseless superstitions to avoid it.

Prof Thornhill’s work drew headlines ten years ago when his book A Natural History of Rape controversially argued sexual coercion emerged as an evolutionary adaptation.

Source

Advertisements

About limelite001

This is my tribute to highlighting the hyposcrisy in the left and racial world...

Posted on 3 July 2010, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. I hate to disagree with you old chap, but I can't see how this is so idiotic : the premise may be flawed in this case but there's no doubt that intelligence differentials are evolutionary/biological if they exist at all (as statistics indicate they do)

    Much criticism should be, however, heaped on the heads of those “scientists” who claim that the truth of this should be ignored Jus' Cos' somebody might use it as an excuse for racism! Science has never set truth by the wayside, even at the risk of massive social upheaval because science is, supposedly, the search for truth; it's a worrying trend that particularly includes attitudes to so-called “climate change”, namely that truth is less important than worldwide wealth distribution.

    Anyway, I digress.
    From an evolutionary point of view, it seems likely that in an environment where man's very survival is constantly under threat (as it is/was in Africa), then intelligence will be geared towards solving some immediate but very simplistic sets of problems – like keeping the birthrate above the death rate, spearing scary animals and not falling into holes.

    We may wonder sometimes how subSaharan Africans managed to survive at all, but it's clear they did – although ALL that was necessary for this was perfect attunement to their environment combined with a high birthrate. There's no doubt that Western medicine has affected this profoundly, but a lot of African “culture” can be traced to evolutionary development i think.

  2. @Viking – not sure I understand what you're trying to say. It's usually from hardship that you learn and evolve. Caucasians have managed to do just this. Do you think that there was never disease and hardship years ago in eg Europe – yet caucasians have managed to overcome this and evolve where they were capable of creating a civil world; where they learnt how to overcome disease. If we take this as the gospel then we should still all be in animal skins and dragging woman back to our caves.

  3. IT was, Lime, and maybe we were less technologically able back then, who knows? Europe is a lot less harsh than Africa, but there were no doubt obstacles to overcome. As someone pointed out, Egyptians lived in a hot climate and they were smart, and so were Babylonians etc.

    But the variety and enormity of challanges breeds problem-solving skills, and it's possible than in subsaharan Africa the list of difficulties were small and constant. And perhaps there were only one real solution to those few problems: breed more.

    Whereas we shaped our environment, perhaps they were happy to be shaped by theirs!

    What's the alternative to the evolutionary approach? I suppose it would be the traditional assumption that they just need to work harder and get education!

  4. @Viking – so, if I follow your logic, if Whits were put in the Congo – you think we couldn't adapt and improve our surroundings within a few years? You only have to look at the former colonies to see what the Whites achieved in a short time compared to the years the Blacks lived there and did nothing to improve their lot – and remember that not all of Africa was affected by disease. Same goes for South Africa – the Whites arrived some 350 years ago to find savages. They had to learn quickly how to survive. For eg. they found that if you dried your meat it would last longer (biltong), simple things like that don't take lots of brain power. That the Blacks didn't take the opportunity to improve their skills and knowledge from the Whites bears testament to just how low their IQs are. Today we still see the majority living like they did 350 years ago – and still breeding like rabbits even though they know they can't afford to have kids. This in a country where the Black life expectancy was the highest of all African countries. So, no, I don't agree with you on this one.

  5. Well, they're not living like they were 350 years ago, that's the point – they have our medicine now so there's a lot more black South Africans. In 1850 there were only 100,000 Xhosas!

    You're right about the opportunities of contact, they should have tried to learn from the settlers; it's a constant throughout history that the colonised imitate the colonisers and that didn't happen in Africa. who knows why not?

    I think if I was shipped to the Congo I wouldn't live long. I think if a whole community of people like me were moved there, with the combined knowledge and adaptive skills of centuries of civilisation, we would flourish.

    Like I said, I think the above premise is wrong, the disease argument makes little sense, but it does point to an evolutionary model of ethnicity/'race' which is hard to refute.

    Some groups do seem to have an anti-civilisation gene or something, where the only reaction to civilisation is to destroy it. I wonder whether that isn't a form of evolution in itself – after all, in spite of the inability to achieve very much, the SubSaharan population are still here and there are a hell of a lot of them!

  6. @Viking – I meant that if whites were to be dropped in the Congo – not by yourself. The only reason that the Blacks in SA have reached their staggering numbers is because the Whites looked after them. The rest of Africa has had the rest of the world looking after them. Should this aid ever be stopped (which I'm hoping will be soon) then I'm pretty sure you'll see mass death and war as they fight amongst each other for the loot. My point is that somewhere along the evolution path, the Caucasian race broke away from the Black race (maybe because of their behaviour) and went on to become a race leader. The Black race, despite all the assistance from other races is still lagging behind and I can't see this ever changing. Due to our compassion we have allowed this race into our lives and homes and the parasite is now killing the host.

  7. “…and the parasite is now killing the host.” Very well said.

  8. @Lime
    I see what you're saying now.
    I think that earning of this compassion you speak of is an evolutionary strategy in an of itself on the half of the SubSaharan population: however they have managed it, they are surviving because of our largesse.
    Our compassion has become their survival strategy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: