--- In cybalist@... s.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@... > wrote:
>
>
> But then, what is Hart's scientific evidence for a higher I.Q. of prehistoric or protohistoric "human races" who evolved in a northern climate? Has he, for instance, singled out any "genes of intelligence" , which he or anyone else could analyze, from ancient skeletal samples of Kurgan people, further comparing them with the "genes of intelligence" of, let us say, ancient Minoan or Indus Valley people? Or does his theory entirely rest on the observation that IEs managed to "conquer" many southern countries, with this showing their higher intelligence? Because, if the latter is the case, his would be a perfectly circular argument!
>
>
Hart is a bit more complex than that, seeing success in a combination of innate intelligence and opportunity. In a cold climate, people were selected for intelligence but were also kept busy with sheer survival. This way, the great advances were made in moderate/warm zones, not near the equator but not in intelligence- kneading cold zones either. That is why the Germanic adopted writing from the more southerly Romans (or Etruscans), who had it from the Phoenicians, who may have had the idea of phoneic writing from the auxiliary phonetic script used alongside the more formal hieroglyphic script by the even more southerly Egyptians.
Years ago, in cultural anthropology, it was explained that cultures acquired technology on a need basis --i.e. only if there were serious problems that needed to be addressed. And so, acc. to this idea, New Guinea and lowland Brazil were early adopters of agriculture but their system was productive enough
to remain in place until modern times. Westerners see them as "primitive" but they thrived under a steady technology for 10,000. Europe, OTOH, was a relatively precarious place constantly in danger of famine and plague, and needed technological advances to keep from starving. China needed constant advances as it was consolidating but once it had a functional system in place, it became conservative. Or so I was taught back in the 70s. I can see many holes in this scenario but on a folk level necessity is the mother of invention
Moreover, he insists on random variation as a key factor: before individuals of eccentrically high intelligence can be favoured by selection, they first have to be produced by random variation, which is more likely to happen in a large population, which in turn is more likely to exist in a moderate climate. This is how he explains the higher IQ apparently reported for Chinese than for Eskimoes: the former have by chance produced more, earlier and more exceptional individuals of high intelligence, and these were favoured (extra by China's meritocratic exam system) in the race for maximum procreation. Also, once harsh circumstances have selected for high intelligence, a population is unlikely to lapse back after migration to a pleasant-climate zone, because the intelligent members will continue to outshine the others with novel (including other than survival-oriented) activities and thus attract more and better partners for procreation.
What struck me when reading his book, is that while the rest of us have ignored racist thought as cranky for decades, a few people in that corner of the opinion spectrum have worked hard to get up-to-date and incorporate all the latest in genetics and psychometry into their worldview. It does not follow that they can't be refuted, only that it will now be a serious job to do so. That's the difference with Hindutva crackpots like Kalyanaraman, who don't bother to stay abreast of the progress made by their opponents and instead stay in a self-congratulatory and other-demonizing mood in perpetuity.
Regards,
KE