/sci/ - Science & Math

Shitty ad hoc evolutionary reasoning with no testable hypothesis or actual facts in sight.

Never change /sci/

>The tropics are safer than temperate and alpine environments


No. No. No. No.

NO

>>10297361
I said it was plausible. I never said it was true. I asked to to tell me why it was not plausible.

>>10297354
Eskimos

>>10297365
I said the tropics were more constant, not that they were safer. Yes humans die a lot in the tropics from disease among other things. But you don't have to plan ahead as much in the tropics. You can use the same survival strategy day in day out. You don't have to spend all summer preparing for winter.

>>10297371
I've thought of this. Eskomos became too adapted to the eskimo live. You don't have to prepare for winter when it is always winter and you subsist off of a winter diet.

>>10297354
Also, heritability doesn't think what you think it means.
Excerpt:
>Misconceptions of the Heritability Concept
>There are a number of common misconceptions on the exact meaning and interpretation of heritability (Visscher et. al., 2008). Heritability is not the proportion of a phenotype that is genetic, but rather the proportion of phenotypic variance that is due to genetic factors. Heritability is a population parameter and, therefore, it depends on population-specific factors, such as allele frequencies, the effects of gene variants, and variation due to environmental factors. It does not necessarily predict the value of heritability in other populations (or other species). Nevertheless, it is surprising how constant heritabilities are across populations and species (Visscher et. al., 2008).
Cont.

>>10297377
>There is no dry season or flooding

>>10297354
>>10297385
Excerpt:
>Heritability Is Not Necessarily Constant
>Interestingly, heritabilities are not constant. For example, estimates of heritability for first lactation milk yield in dairy cattle nearly doubled from approximately 25% in the 1970s to roughly 40% in recent times. Heritability can change over time because the variance in genetic values can change, the variation due to environmental factors can change, or the correlation between genes and environment can change. Genetic variance can change if allele frequencies change (e.g., due to selection or inbreeding), if new variants come into the population (e.g., by migration or mutation), or if existing variants only contribute to genetic variance following a change in genetic background or the environment. The same trait measured over an individual's lifetime may have different genetic and environmental effects influencing it, such that the variances become a function of age. For example, variance in weight at birth is influenced by maternal uterine environment, and variance in weight at weaning depends on maternal milk production, but variance of mature adult weight is unlikely to be influenced by maternal factors, which themselves have both a genetic and environmental component. Heritabilities may be manipulated by changing the variance contributed by the environment. Empirical evidence for morphometric traits suggests lower heritabilities in poorer environments, but not for traits more closely related to fitness (Charmantier & Garant, 2005). Understanding how heritability changes with environmental stressors is important for understanding evolutionary forces in natural populations (Charmantier & Garant, 2005).

>>10297385
>>10297390
>Ctrl+f "heritability" in the OP: 0 results
Boy, you sure showed him

>>10297396
I know what he's implying.

>>10297389
I live in the northern tropical part of Australia. I know all about the dry season and the wet season. It is not at all like a harsh winter. The wet season is just uncomfortable, not a risk to the survival of your tribe. Food sources don't disappear in the wet season. The dry season draws animals to the remaining water sources. It is in many ways easier to hunt in it.

Now imagine a tribe having to survive a whole winter in Scandinavia without any food stores or winter clothes. They will die.

>>10297389
I think he's referring to the necessity of long term food storage for survival

>>10297399
You posted a clarification to the definition of a population parameter. OP is talking about whether or not certain weather conditions could have acted as a selective pressure. What was he implying?

Just because you read something interesting doesn't mean it's applicable to every discussion on a topic.

>>10297410
The Scandinavians never amounted to shit, and received civilization over three Thousand years after it first arose from Europeans further south. What?

>>10297354
Bois, dont forget that every time that some /out and /k autists left the h. erectus tribes they were carrying more knowledge, tools, /x pastas and had at least one /ic lurker with them

>>10297426
Mhm, really?
>I think this is relevant with the current James Watson Nobel Price controversy.
>Humans that spent some time evolving in cold climates are much better at maintaining functional societies and are more 'intelligent'.
I think it fits perfectly.

>>10297430
I said Scandinavians selected for traits better at maintaining functional societies such as long term orientated thinking, cooperation, agreeableness, empathy. Can you honestly deny that Scandinavians are not those things?

I never said they were a great civilization that full of philosophy and art.

>>10297399
>I know what he's implying.
how the fuck

>>10297440
>they were selected for traits that literally every hunter gatherer society has
>Can you deny that
I guess not.

>>10297440
>I said Scandinavians selected for traits better at maintaining functional societies such as long term orientated thinking, cooperation, agreeableness, empathy. Can you honestly deny that Scandinavians are not those things?

Literally just human qualities. Every conceivable habitat aside from the Garden of Eden will “select” for those traits.

>>10297433
Please type out what you think he was implying.

>Humans that spent some time evolving in cold climates are much better at maintaining functional societies and are more 'intelligent'.
This statement (roughly) suggests that cold climates created a selective pressure that favored individuals with higher intelligence. What does this have to do with the proportion of phenotypic variation attributable to genetic factors (heritability)?

*yawn*

Neanderthal, which was a european based subspecies of humans, was eventually out-competed by the homo sapiens, which originated in Africa and spread to Europe later.

You suggested the harsh climates of europe created selection pressure for planning and thinking ahead. Oddly enough it was the harsh climate in africa (droughts) which caused homo sapiens to develop planning and thinking ahead. These traits enabled sapiens to out-compete Neanderthal.

So knowing this, I believe your explanation is inconsistent.

>>10297459
I'm fairly certainly this is going to devolve into a veiled "racialist thread", and I wanted to make a preemptive strike early on, as to dissuade the digression.
Whatever it is congruent now is immaterial.

>>10297459
It’s dubious when said traits are selected for anyway and would exist in much higher quantities in a place that can support a higher population like, say, the Indus River valley or the yellow river delta, where hundreds of thousands of people would live, form cities, specialize in industry, manage large armies, engage in conquest....

>>10297465
>*Whether

>>10297354
>Africans have high verbal intelligence. People like Mohammad Ali could be articulate and suave, yet still dumb as fuck. They love music and dancing. They are statistically more likely to steal due to being short term orientated thinkers and less empathy.
I like how this last part has no value at all and is just shitting on niggers

>>10297452
>>10297455
WRONG. HERE IS MY POINT.
The pressures placed on Scandinavians were completely different to that of aboriginal Australians. Aboriginal Australians remained static for 50,000 years because they didn't have to change.

Northern humans had to learn to predict future events, became more efficient with materials, prepare and store food away in different ways, create warm clothing and structures to keep themselves alive.

Aboriginals could walk around naked for eternity and kill the same kangaroos and witchetty grubs EVERY DAY if trey wanted to.


Working together and getting along was much more of a priority for northern humans. Survival depended on it. 1 aboriginal could survive by himself with ease as long as he knew the local bushcraft.

Today we see that even among Asians, the northern Asians are much more orderly than southern tropical Asians.

>>10297480
yeah, pretty much shows OP's minimum power level right off.

>>10297465
>devolve into a "racialist thread"
In fairness, it was a racialist thread from the outset. Posting a correction to something the OP said doesn't help.

>>10297468
>It’s dubious when said traits are selected for anyway and would exist in much higher quantities
>traits [...] would exist in much higher quantities
you what now

>>10297482
>The pressures placed on Scandinavians were completely different to that of aboriginal Australians.
False.

>Aboriginal Australians remained static for 50,000 years because they didn't have to change.
False.

>Aboriginals could walk around naked for eternity and kill the same kangaroos and witchetty grubs EVERY DAY if trey wanted to.
False.

>Working together and getting along was much more of a priority for northern humans.
False.

>1 aboriginal could survive by himself with ease as long as he knew the local bushcraft.
False.

>Today we see that even among Asians, the northern Asians are much more orderly than southern tropical Asians.
False.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

>>10297482
But civilization first arose around really warm rivers in the Nile and the Euphrates.....

>>10297489
Nice argument

>>10297487
>you what now

More people. More smart people.

>>10297492
Thanks, You too I guess...?

>>10297490
I'm not talking about civilization. I'm talking about cooperative societies.

>>10297490
Oh and mesoamerica, which is a fucking jungle.

>>10297497
Civilizations are the greatest examples of cooperative societies, though.

>>10297498
>Inca empire was founded in 1438 ad

>>10297500
In B4 cities are every man for himself and some sort of allusion to black ghettos.

>>10297502
Actually, Andes civilization is thousands of years older than the Incas.

>>10297502
>t. Spaniard

>>10297494
Sure, but I don't think that negates the point that "cold weather could have created selective pressure for higher intelligence".

This is the problem with this threads, you've got >>10297482 basically saying "abos are retarded because literally nothing changed for 50,000 years" and you've got folks just saying "nuh uh".

In summary:
* Highly annually variable climate almost certainly created some sort of selective pressure
* It's hard to say exactly what that pressure selected for, though people can come up with some facially plausible ideas (e.g. long term planning)
* It's effectively impossible to put the magnitude of the impact of this pressure in context relative to other factors. This isn't the "sole reason abos are dumb", but it likely played some role in human variation across regions.

>>10297511
Whatever selective pressure it has is obviously insignificant when civilizations all started in warm river deltas or otherwise tropical conditions aside from the Andes civilizations, who nevertheless heavily exploited the seas.

>>10297490
We are not talking about civilization But I could argue that Germanic and Japanese people adapted to civilization incredibly effectively when it was introduced to them, because of the traits they had selected for.

>>10297524
>But I could argue
You can argue whatever you want.

>>10297524 was meant for you >>10297517

>We are not talking about civilization But I could argue that Germanic and Japanese people adapted to civilization incredibly effectively when it was introduced to them by the Romans and the Chinese, because of the traits they had selected for.

>>10297525
Great argument once again. At make a minimal attempt to refute it.

>>10297517
We're talking about history of people not of civilizations. Lots of evolution took place before we settled our shit in the fertile crescent.

>>10297529
>At make a minimal attempt to refute it.
Nah.

It is clear that the more recently a human group was hunter gatherer the more athletic they are. Germanics have been farmers for 2000, some less, and still retain a lot more athleticism/ size than southern European populations who have been farming for 3000-4000+ years. Indians who have been agrarian for 6000+ years are the least athletic group on the planet. They are all small, slow, and uncoordinated. Africans and Australian aboriginals are fast as fuck because they were hunter gatherers up until 200 years ago. Clear evidence of different pressures influencing evolution.

>>10297557
>It is clear that
Not an argument.

>>10297566
Why are you so emotionally bothered by this debate? Not even the most emotionally unstable stormfags on /pol/ are this bad. Very unscientific. Sad!

>>10297585
Not an argument.

>>10297588
Yeah... it was a question.

>>10297354
>then actually articulate why this is not plausible

Because for the vast majority of human history it was societies in dry (hot) or tropical areas like the Middle East, Mediterranean, India and China that were the most advanced and not societies in cold areas like the upper northern hemisphere.

If your theory was correct then Inuits and Siberians would be the most intelligent people on Earth, but the truth is that human civilization itself was invented in the Middle East and cold climate areas were considered to be inhabited by barbarians.

>>10297601
I'm not talking about civilization. Civilization arose for a reason in areas with river valleys, and easily domesticated plants and animals.

I'm talking about cold winters forcing humans to select for traits such as long term orientated thinking, cooperation, agreeableness, empathy.

When civilization was introduced to the Japanese and Germanic's they adapted incredibly effectively. This I would argue is because they highly orderly and cooperative people.

I don't know much about the Inuits or Siberians. Whether they are cooperative and long term thinkers or not. But I would argue they became static because they adapted too well to the arctic and no longer had to think or plan too much to survive.
Living in arctic conditions all year round is completely different to having to having to prepare and store enough food, butter, clothes to survive winter like the northern Europeans.

Northern Europeans living in a forest in northern germany didn't have access to seal meat and fur in winter.

>>10297657
>africans had it too easy so they never got smart
>inuits had it too hard so they adapted and never got smart
>white europeans had it just right so they got smart instead of adapting

Just fucking off yourself.

>>10297660
Why do you people get so angry. It concerns me greatly that we can't have rational debates about some topics because people like you have been conditioned from birth by tv shows to want to attack people with the wrong opinions. Cult like behavior. People like you will exterminate people like me in 50 years. A dystonia future awaits us.

>>10297354
>Slavs are a bit of an outlier here, but who the fuck knows what is wrong with them.
What the fuck is your problem with us? Is it years of hollywood propaganda of le evil ugly Russian archetype?

>>10297354
Ah yes, this is why nordics basically invented civilization and dominated technologically for 4600 out 5000 years of written history.

What whitey needs to understand is that nordics had a brief phase of a couple of century where they dominated because they were lucky to be the first ones to find out about scientific method. The rest of the world is already catching up and will soon take over. Then again, for millenias to follow, whites will be irrelevant.

>>10297657
>When civilization was introduced to the Japanese and Germanic's they adapted incredibly effectively. This I would argue is because they highly orderly and cooperative people

Is this why germanics were in war with romans for centuries and when they finally managed to conquer a weakened rome they shuttered an age that is called "the dark age" and lasted centuries?

>>10297674
>Why do you people get so angry.

Lesser races have inferority complex so they react strongly to any implication that they're inferior to other races in any way.

>>10297722
Not to mention technological progress is exponential which is why a lot more was able to be achieved in 400 years than the years before

>>10297497
>I'm not talking about civilization
>I'm talking about cooperative societies.

So compare and contrast.

/sci/ 18 yr old redditors. Do /sci/ posters only cross post on /co/, /lit/, and /lbgt/? I couldn't imagine how emotionally bothered they must get by the average /tv/ or /sp/ thread.

>>10297800
I came here because I like reading about cavemen.

Instead I got a racist troll thread.

You're only getting responses from people who are mildly triggered by racism. Everyone else is ignoring you.

Here, look... I'll point you in the right direction. Read up on Neanderthal society and you will find evidence that Neanderthals had a much deeper sense of spirituality and compassion.

The first humans, being migratory, were much less compassionate. If someone couldn't keep up they were left behind.

What Neanderthals did not have was innovation and ruthlessness.

I can render your argument obsolete with one word.

>drought

This requires forward planning on a scale of years, decades even. Not months.

Disappointing thread. 2/10

>>10297354
Why didn't that happen in Asia and the Americas then?

>>10298170
And Europe/Africa, Greece and Egypt were working societies while colder places were fucking around.

Evolution is not guided. It doesn't make animals smarter or stronger. It doesn't try to make animals more like humans, nor does it select animals based on traits humans like. Why would this garbage ideas apply only to humans, and not other animals? Why aren't there tons of "smart" animals in colder climates?

All areas of the world have changing seasons. The idea that it is easier to live in tropical climates is retarded.

>>10297489
>False.
NOT an argument.

>>10298926
Therefore you are in agreement. >>10297489 wins.

>>10297354
(((THEY))) WILL LITERALLY NEVER TELL THE TRUTH. THE GOAL IS ONE-WORLD ZIONISM, EVERYONE ENSLAVED UNDER (((THEM))).

STOP. ARGUING. IN. GOOD. FAITH. THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT YOUR LITTLE MORALS AND FEE-FEES, THEY WANT YOUR BITCH AND THE ENTIRE WORLD TO BELONG TO THEM.

>>10297361
>evolution didn't happen because my feelings

>>10297354
>Cold winters forced these humans to select for traits such as long term orientated thinking, cooperation, creativity, agreeableness, empathy. To be exiled from your tribe in winter was certain death. Tribes had to work together, use foresight, and prepare for the winter, otherwise they would not survive. It they could not work together and survive the winter, they died and their genes were not passed on.
Ironically, Romans thought the exact opposite.

>>10300028
romans literally came into the peninsula from the north, like most societies during the age. they migrated south and their population got huge because of more forgiving climates

>>10297354
Yes, this is right for the most part.

All different environments leads to different problems, which leads to different favorable survival techniques, which IS different behaviors and different values, which is what culture is. This also applies to psychology, which goes hand-in-hand with culture. People value shit differently, act differently. There's also multiple forms of intelligence and IQ isn't necessarily the main explanation for European success.

>>10297722
>he doens't know about the Finnish-Korean hyperwar

>>10297482
The reason Aboriginals are so stupid is because they are born drunk.

>>10300118
They just had a different lifestyle to ours. They were great traders, travellers and storytellers. Somehow they worked out a lot of in-depth knowledge on the native botanical speicimens. Most of which has been lost. Many of their foods were poisonous but they worked out how to treat them to make them edible.

The main cultural divergence between ours was their lack individuals aspiring to kingship. Without being unified, without a nation and without competition from outside sources they never developed along our path.

I wouldn't label them as stupid, just disinterested and suffering from a great deal of social issues imposed upon them by colonial Australia.

Additionally... There is little to none of any native flora or fauna which are amenable to domestication and cultivation. This was an immense hurdle however there is evidence of at least one eel farm with an industrial area for butchering and smoking.

Just the same as most other native inhabitants on any of the other continents, neanderthals included. They are broken and disinterested. Their interpretation of life and their expectations of it are much more simple than ours.

Seeing how unhappy my own culture makes me I have to ask; Who are we to impose our way of life on other cultures.

>>10297489
>Aboriginals could walk around naked for eternity and kill the same kangaroos and witchetty grubs EVERY DAY if trey wanted to.
>False

Have you been to Australia? I bet you fucking haven't. You can literally pick any random bush you want, walk around for half an hour and spot 3 wallabees and a kangaroo. Meat is fucking EVERYWHERE here and available with great ease to anyone with a sharp stick and a pair of legs.

>>10300665
Written by somebody who has never eaten a kangaroo. They are hard to butcher and there isn't much meat on them except in the legs, which are gamey and tough.

There are two nuggets of very fine meat at the base of the tail but the rest of the animal is sausage meat. My understanding is that they were rarely eaten. Several kinds of roo are just totally inedible.

There's a lot of food out there if you know what to look for but kangaroo is not what I would be eating out in the bush.

>>10300726
t. /out/ist

>>10297354

>Humans that spent some time evolving in cold climates

Eskimos and other Native American groups evolved in cold climates. Why did they remain in tribes?

>Cold winters forced these humans to select for traits such as long term orientated thinking, cooperation, creativity, agreeableness, empathy.

Why do you assume these traits never existed in societies with warm climates?

I'm just going to put it out there that it's as simple as ego. Western culture places enourmous emphasis on the ego, on getting ahead and on rulership and being ruled.

This element of the ego is repressed in indigenous peoples. For the most part.

None of this is related to climate or race. It's wholly to do with making a decision to settle in one place in large numbers.

Cities have a very obvious influence on human social development. The lack of space, deciding who had to live outside the city walls. Competing for status, wealth and possessions. All of this is prevalent even in tribal societies. However there it is repressed.

To be fair, abbos did work out that if you burn down a forest the animals will run out. Great plan until they had mass extinction due to all the habitat being destroyed and the plants be systematically eradicated every few years they managed to grow back. The only ones that thrived were ones that adapted to be burnt like the tree that's seed only opens after a fire or the other trees whose bark creates a protective barrier when burnt. Abbos are really quite intellectually stunted on average though. I have a friend doing education in Australia. Half the subjects are related to what's being taught (maths, science) the other half is stuff specific to teaching. Of that half specific to teaching about 2/3rds is focused entirely on how to teach abbos, 1/6th is related to non English speakers (which includes abbos despite the fact they grow up in an English speaking country) and the other 1/6th is training to teach literal retards (which has a sub section on teaching abbo retards). The only training for non abbos/retards is in placement. I wonder why you don't need special training to teach whites?

>>10300729
Eskimos and Native Indians were relatively smart compared to their Mexican counterparts. They were also rather friendly and accommodating compared to the heart munching, human sacrificing animals in the amazon. Would have loved to see how they would have reacted with the monkeys down south if the Americans didn't kill them all.

>>10300736
That's retarded and ego is still obviously genetic because even "tribal" people raised in white society still don't become "successful" on the same level as whites.

>>10300740

But didn't their Mexican counterparts build civilizations?

>>10300747
it's easier to build civilization in accomodating climates

the eskimos far outperform south americans on iq tests despite living in fucking ice huts

they ARE pretty violent though

>>10300742
You simply cannot make any claim that western culture is not hypercompetitive. I make no claim that their ego is absent, only that it is repressed.

>>10300738
The problem here is childhood trauma and substance abuse. It's very important to note that most westerners are also intellectually stunted. Most, in my opinion.

However, as western culture has begun educating their youth to higher standards there has been documented increases in average IQ.

Again the issue here is disinterest combined with ingrained intergenerational social issues.

The problem, as it may be described by the education department, is engagement. How do you engage with a people who view us as an enemy and see our culture as toxic to their own.

Crack that and you will see children take an interest in education and over several generations there would be an increse in average IQ.

One further point. I can attest to the fact that if you treat somebody like they are stupid they will conform to your expectations.

>>10300753
Even if we assume it is all culture and absolutely nothing genetic (even though there has been research that shows African Americans have a higher occurrence of a gene which predisposes to violence and aggression) that still doesn't help because all these screeching radicals will call you a racist for even alluding to the possibility that their 'culture' is not conducive to high learning and intelligence. African American 'culture' consists of fatherless homes, mothers who are welfare whores and idols who are faux gangsters. This obviously contributes to their aggression and lack of respect for high learning but does it really account for ever negative aspect?

>>10300814
No. However living circumstances predicate genetic expression.

They were fine before we got involved. You could say that adaptability also has something to do with it. Adaptability would have been heavily selected for as our ancestors migrated out of africa. Indigenous populations remained static for a very long time.

It's plainly obvious that they are struggling to adapt. I suspect that this effect is primarily cultural however it is also likely to be expressed genetically.

I won't argue against genetic variance between races. I will argue against the opinion that the differences are mostly negative.

>>10300829
Depends on what you value as to what one might describe as negative. There's still the problem of the fact that you're not socially or politically allowed to broach such a subject in public without people trying to ruin your life over it.

>>10300836
Yes. It's information warfare of some kind. It's almost as though western culture is being repressed in an attempt to draw out the potential of these races. As though such a thing could occur spontaneously on any timescale that is meaningful to us.

How to trigger them? Better yet how to uncover and heal the failings of our own culture and genetics.

Humans who live in HARSHER environments are more intelligent, Inuits are one of the few indiginous people with fairly high IQ because they live in tundra, mediteranians/persians live in harsh arid climate, both these environments need intellect and cooperation to survive in, meanwhile Adisa in Africa has no pressure to be cohesive and inteligent because he lives in an environnent where you can be outside without freezing or cooking to death and has plenty of food and water

>>10300665
This, Australia was called land of plenty for a reason

>>10297464
This is correct, though if I am not mistaken, there was both interbreeding as well as Homo Sapiens out breeding Homo Neanderthalensis.

Also, Homo Neanderthalensis may have had a disadvantage as they had around 10% more brain volume which needed appropriately more resources.

>>10300051
They were Etruscans that happened to speak an Indo-European language.

>>10300851
Plenty of poisonous marsupials and venomous snakes maybe.

>>10300729
>Eskimos and other Native American groups evolved in cold climates. Why did they remain in tribes?
and Eskimos have larger brains more capable of navigation thanks to their cold climates

>>10300729
Not all native Americans remained in tribes.

>>10297354
>harsh european winters

Yeah. Try building a cellar and storing food at 35°C (95°F) and 99% humidity for entire months and see how good it goes.

Euros always lived in easy mode, they dont even experience hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, locusts, volcanoes, malaria, etc...

>>10297371
They have a saying about dark personality:
>it's just better to push him off the ice while nobody is looking

>>10297464
Neanderthals adapted to natural environment, not to crazy sapiens.

>>10301774
Europe used to have malaria. There was a whole process of converting marshlands to farmlands that killed it off a few hundred years back.

>>10297464
AFAIK, Neanderthals weren't very numerous, so there was no competition over land, there was plenty of empty land, so the contact was likely peaceful. As Neanderthals had bigger brains they were likely rulers and nobility, but in terms of numbers they were dominated by masses of sapiens plebs, because of this their genotype dissolved over time.

>>10301813
>AFAIK, Neanderthals weren't very numerous
Then you would be wrong. They weren't settling into metropolises obviously, but there were a sizeable population at a number of times. You tend to find in the ground layers humans and neanderthals coming and going as the other leaves and returns.

> Slavs are a bit of an outlier here, but who the fuck knows what is wrong with them.

Sorry, but I fail to understand what you mean. What exactly is "wrong" with me? We are in fact as high IQ as the West, and higher in many cases. Take your uniformed propaganda out the door.

> Slavs are a bit of an outlier here, but who the fuck knows what is wrong with them.

Sorry, but I fail to understand what you mean. What exactly is "wrong" with me? We are in fact as high IQ as the West, and higher in many cases. Take your uninformed propaganda out the door.

> Africans have high verbal intelligence.

A'yo hold up jus' for one secon' ery'one, you really sayin' that we wuz Mensa and shiet man?

>>10301712

Yeah but the ones who lived in cold climates (such as the Seneca and Oneida tribes) did.

>>10300843

> meanwhile Adisa in Africa has no pressure to be cohesive and inteligent

Then how did humans even evolve? I thought it was East Africa's environment that caused us to start crafting tools, walking upright, and using our brains to outsmart other animals

>>10302130
After they left africa

>florida
/thread