On “Primitive” Humans, Ancient and Modern (part 3: The Awful, Ugly Truth)

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, a mere heart of stone. —Charles Darwin

One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die. —the same

     Throughout this discussion it should be borne in mind that evolution is a matter of populations adapting to their environment over time; and thus a changing or otherwise challenging environment, due to climatic or geologic change, additions or subtractions of species from the local ecosystems, migrations of a population into new territories, etc., will result in greater adaptive changes—and thus in populations that are more derived, “advanced,” or “highly evolved,” and less archaic or “primitive.”

     Moving into Eurasia from Africa was definitely a major challenge for our distant ancestors. In fact, it is theorized that the first migration wave of anatomically modern humans was entirely or almost entirely wiped out a little more than 70,000 years ago, which has been estimated by some authorities to have killed all but a few thousand humans, with most of the survivors, maybe all of them, being still in Africa.

     Even just moving into the temperate zone requires greater adaptation for tropical animals like us apes. In a temperate climate there are marked seasons including winter, creating a need for fire, clothing, the storing and preserving of food, and so on. Also, new diseases may be encountered in new environments—it is claimed that some of Eurasians’ Neanderthal and Denisovan genes code for resistance to diseases and other health issues not common in Africa. Ice ages presented greater challenges still. Also the migrants into new territories were required to compete against the non-sapiens early human incumbents already residing there. Thus in addition to cold resistance, paler skin to facilitate synthesis of Vitamin D, etc., greater intelligence was required in the early northern migrants for the sake of working out survival strategies for new problems, and for problem-solving in general.

     Thus evolutionary adaptation to changing, challenging environments accelerated after our ancestors left Africa, rendering the Eurasian Homo sapiens more derived or “evolved” than those who remained behind. This is straightforward biology and should not be particularly controversial. Also, the migrants interbred to some degree with larger-brained Neanderthals, perhaps resulting in hybrid vigor, and/or with our asymmetrical brain function combined with the larger Neanderthal brain producing a smarter human. (This last may be supported to some degree by the fact that East Asians have slightly larger brains and slightly higher IQ than Europeans, and also have a slightly higher incidence of Neanderthal ancestry.) This accelerated adaptation with regard to problem-solving abilities, plus possibly Neanderthal genes, increased human intelligence after humans left Africa, as is indicated by modern IQ test results as well as the straightforward plausibility of the theory.

     Here is another point to bear in mind, perhaps more philosophical than biological: Body and mind evolve together; one doesn’t undergo significant change without the other, because the two are in a state of constant interaction. Consequently it is a fairly safe bet that there is a virtual one-for-one correspondence between physical and mental/behavioral differences, not only between species but between racial groups as well. (This would also apply to differences between men and women, which in some respects are much greater than differences between races.) To the extent that two organisms are physically different, to approximately that same extent they will be mentally and behaviorally different.

     Charles Darwin, one of the greatest and most influential biologists in world history, if not THE greatest, obviously considered blacks and australoids to be biologically more archaic than Europeans and East Asians, psychologically as well as physically. He based this idea upon his scientific acumen and on scientific observation, not upon “white privilege” and racist bigotry. (As a bit of circumstantial evidence, Darwin was vehemently against the institution of slavery.) And really, if one can back away from PC hysteria a bit, it really is fairly obvious—obvious to anyone willing to take a clear, hard, more or less objective look at the situation, speaking generally of course, with plenty of individual deviations from the general trend. Nevertheless, archaic or even less intelligent does not necessarily mean inferior: is a shark inferior to a mackerel or a dolphin? Is a shrew inferior to a mouse?

     Considering that general intelligence is one of the most important factors determining success in the modern world, and very probably success in the prehistoric one also, and also considering that intelligence is one of the most extensively studied psychological traits in human beings internationally, I may as well review the general trends for IQ by ethnicity. I’ve already written on this subject in previous posts, like here, so I won’t belabor the point, but will just state the main facts; and if you want to seek out references you can do so easily if you have access to the Internet. The aforementioned blog post contains a few good references with which you could start, if you are so inclined. Remember, the following are statistical averages; I’m certainly not saying, for instance, that all Japanese people have an IQ of 105, or that all black people in the USA have an IQ of 85. They’re just statistical averages.

     The most intelligent ethnicity or “race” in the world, or so say the scientists, is the Ashkenazi Jews, who may have an average IQ as high as, or even higher than, 110. Next are East Asians, particularly the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, with an average of around 105. Next come Europeans, with the IQ rating system calibrated so that they/we average out at 100. Next are various groups of “brown people” such as West Asians, South Asians, Southeast Asians, North Africans, Native Americans, American Hispanics, etc., who average at around 90 or a little less. Next come black Americans, who are mostly sub-Saharan African by ancestry but also have an average of 20-25% European DNA, with a mean IQ of 85. Below them are pure-blooded sub-Saharan Africans with an average IQ estimated all over the map, but tending toward the low 70s. As mentioned in the previous post, Australian aborigines are below this, scoring in the low to mid 60s; and Kalahari bushmen or San have the lowest average IQ I have seen recorded for a racial group, measured at 60 (although there is a legend that Congolese Pygmies score even lower). Just to give a little sense of perspective, a person with an IQ below 70 in the west would be considered mentally retarded, and would be useless for any job other than the simplest menial labor; and I have been told that the US Army as a rule rejects any prospective recruit with an IQ below 83, considering him to be more of a liability than an asset to any aspect of American military defense. Even as cannon fodder he might run in the wrong direction and get the wrong people shot.

the ugly, horrible, nightmarish truth
(this is bad enough, although a graph showing the distributions
of white South Africans and black ones, or of European
Australians and aborigines, would be much worse)

     Of course there are some, mainly on the feminized PC left, who insist that “it’s all just a cultural construct”—all differences in IQ are based upon biased testing techniques, the fact that blacks and aboriginal peoples have been oppressed, etc. This is not very likely, to say the least. Not only does the theory outlined above easily account for such psychological differences as general intelligence among different racial groups, but, for example, brain size significantly correlates with measured intelligence (with brain size varying among races), even relatively “privileged” sub-Saharan black university students score in the low to mid 80s on IQ tests, and testing techniques have been refined and perfected for more than a century, for the express purpose of filtering out cultural differences, often by PC leftist academics themselves.

     Furthermore, absolutely no attempt thus far has been successful in significantly reducing the intelligence gap between American blacks and whites, particularly with regard to general cognitive ability, or g. The mean IQ of American black people has remained in the near vicinity of 85 since IQ tests were invented more than a hundred years ago. This suggests that, short of genetic engineering or computer implants, the various races will never enjoy real equality of outcome in western society, and the sooner people realize this gruesome fact the better it will be for everyone. Inequality of potential for success is built into us members of the human race, and only repressive social engineering and perpetual affirmative action will conceal this reality from the politically correct, while at the same time undermining the efficiency of modern society by refusing to employ the most qualified.

     Personally, before examining the information available on the subject I had little idea of all of this “race realism” stuff. The politically correct mainstream obviously isn’t advertising it; in fact if anything academia and the PC media are covering up the facts with a pillow and smothering them as best they can. I had very little interaction with black people as a young person growing up in America’s Pacific Northwest. In the small town where I grew up there was a total of one black person: my kindergarten teacher. I can’t remember anyone saying an unkind word about her, and my parents, both of whom were from America’s Deep South, were eager to teach me that Miss Harrison was a person as worthy of respect as anyone else, and we made friendly visits to her house a few times. She taught me how to tie my shoes. The total number of black people at my university, as far as I can recall, was two, both of whom were friends who came to my apartment to hang out with my roommate and me. (The university I attended was in the Pacific Northwest and had no athletic scholarships, and this was before diversity hysteria kicked in in American academia.) I don’t think I’ve ever even met a member of the Australoid race, much less an African bushman, although lots of Burmese people apparently have some Australoid ancestry, and look rather like aborigines. I try to approach the issue of racial differences as a biologist, maybe even as a philosopher, not as a PC social scientist or liberal conformist, nor as a white supremacist for that matter. I call them as I see them. Plus, I suppose, I’m fighting back against attempted PC thought control, blaming of white men for everything bad in society, and plain untruth.

     It can be argued, and of course IS argued, that even if “race realism” (also referred to as human biodiversity, or HBD) is true, it’s a mistake to make an issue of it. But ignoring unpleasant yet important truths is cowardly and infantile, and denying them is simply dishonest. It is best to face the facts and to deal with them. Perhaps it is best not to dwell upon such subjects as inherent racial inequality; but now the feminized PC left is insisting upon the the opposite, that is, the fallacy that we’re all the same, and that inequality is all Whitey’s fault. This is hogwash, and to remain silent out of fear of persecution, or of being called a racist by the PC thought police, is spineless cowardice.

     I will conclude with yet one more unsavory point for consideration: if the word “superior” has any meaning in an evolutionary sense, then it would refer to the obvious evidence of which groups are most successful, the ones winning the Darwinian struggle of survival of the fittest; and the European race was pretty obviously superior in this sense until they/we became feminized—although I suppose the Chinese and Indians could be considered successful by their sheer numbers. Thus, feminists are inferior, or rather they are rendering the European race inferior, from an evolutionary point of view anyhow. The moral of the story: To hell with feminism.