Is this discussion mainly about people with black skin of African origin? Can a persons mind be reduced to their skin colour?
Individualism is useful in the legal context with regards to equal rights. That doesn't mean different groups can not have different cultural trajectories because of genetic differences. I'm not suggesting judging anyone on the basis of whatever characteristic. But if you wish to know: the inverse correlation between darkness of skin and IQ is rather strong. Even darker pigeons have been observes to be more successful in city environments. And they have been observed to be more bold. Dopamine is synthesized from melanin. To sum things up:
- Melanin rich individual have more dopamine synthesis
- 58% of black males carry the low activity
3R "warrior gene" MAO-A allele (vs. 36% of white males) further increasing monoamines, including dopamine (this and more melanin protect Africans from Parkinson's)- African males have a high androgen/estrogen ratio (there's regional variation on the large continent)- Africans have a smaller brain size suggesting a more hostile childhood environment. Smaller brain mature more quickly and blacks children have been observed to develop motor skill more quickly. Being able to sit up straightright after birth while it usually takes a couple of weeks for white childrenThis info may be important for the longecity members because different nootropic and ergogenic regiments may be better for people of different ethnicities. These differences are certainly relevant for the pharmaceutical industry as well, because some medicines need to be tailor made or differently dosed.
I haven't read any complaints about people from the near and far east. Iran, Iraq, India and China and S.E.A had developed sophisticated societies long before Europeans did. Social order/cohesion are much higher values in Asia.
The Chinese were ahead for a long time. It is possible that the feudal chaos, something in between tribalism and empirialism, of Europe temporarily put the Europeans in the lead. There are many other factors as well. East-Asians have a slightly higher average IQ, perhaps even due to dietary patterns, but a low variance in IQ, perhaps due to a lower androgen/estrogen ratio. The higher androgen/estrogen ratio of males is probably partly responsible for the far wider bell curve of males vs. females, although the male and female average IQ is about the same. East-Asian males are less masculine perhaps explaining why there are more European geniuses percentage wise even though the average IQ of Europeans in slightly lower.
Dysgenics could easily account for a lower modern IQ of Europeans vs. E-As as well (corrected for the Flynn effect which is active in both regions). These days the average IQ of Greeks is 92 and there's clear evidence of an inverse correlation between intelligence and fertility across Europe, excepting perhaps the Ashkenazim. The latter would explain why this ethnic group scores a full standard deviation above the European mean, wins so many Nobel Prizes, Fields Medal's, et cetera. It's not just cultural because Sephardics and Mizrahi Jews are not special at all in the area of science and IQ. It is even a taboo among Ashkenazim to marry a non-Ashkenazim Jew.
So why did European civilizations become the dominant one of recent history? It has nothing to do with minor differences in phenotype and everything to do with dominant ideas and chance events like the plague and mongol hordes and the ming dynasty decision to isolate itself rather than explore and trade. Within the last two hundred years both German and Japanese were considered to be lazy nations that produced low quality goods. This changed dramatically when new ideas were introduced.
Chance effects play a large role. Nevertheless, the ancestors of modern Europeans and Africans had a 60.000 year head start in Africa. That's a good opportunity for all sorts of chance events to happen. Then all of a sudden after intermixing with Neanderhals and becoming whiter, Europeans and North-Africans started developing towards civilization.
In Africa, the problem has always been mysticism, tribalism and inhospitable climates. We might see black people, but there are innumerable tribes constantly at war with each other. The geographical isolation made it impossible for philosophy to enter and so they stayed primitive.
Why do you presume the African savanna, the place where we evolved for the most part, is somehow a harsher environments than, say, Siberia? And what do you even mean by "geographical isolation"? The population density was far lower in Eurasia up until historic times, for the simple reason that it takes a while for a continent to become populated while Africa had already been inhabited by homo sapiens for about 60.000. I would suggest that colder climates are actually far harsher and would further inhibit population growth while selecting for long term planning and cooperative abilities.
Interestingly, the brain volume of homo sapiens was larger in prehistoric times. Skulls with very large cranial capacities have been found both in South-Africa and Europe, the remains of the latter population used to be referred to as Cro-Magnon man. It's possible that Africans had a very great potential in the past but simple missed the train. A dangerous childhood environment, such as due to tribal conflict, selects for quicker maturation times, i.e. a smaller brain and perhaps higher levels of monoamines. As I pointed out earlier, black infants maturate more quickly in the area of motor skills. Suggesting a different childhood environment over evolutionary time. So, the higher population density of Africa rather than geographical isolation may have selected for lower intelligence indirectly. This is an evolutionary trap. It happens in other species too: gorillas are unlikely to develop towards higher intelligence whereas chimps and bonobos could theoretically more easily become more intelligent.
How much of IQ is inherited and how much is the result of environmental factors like nutrition and a stable family? It may be true that median IQ of African Americans is one standard deviation behind everyone else, but I doubt it has anything to do with genetics. Unless you can show a difference in frequency of genes related to intelligence between black folk and other 'races' then there is not much scientific basis.
Many twin studies shows the correlation between genetics and adult intelligence to be very high, roughly 0.8. Far higher for example than the correlation between sexual orientation and genetics, which is only 0.3 according to a Swedish study, the largest twin study ever done exploring this question. Suggesting strong non-genetic factors, probably in utero. About the cause(s) of homosexuality: hypotheses non fingo, so as not to contaminate the thread. Back on-topic.
Some interesting facts from the 2005 SAT data:
Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.So, children of very poor whites do better than children of wealthy blacks, strongly suggesting a regression towards a different IQ mean: 85 for blacks and 100 for whites. The "regression towards the mean" is a well established statistical phenomenon that acts particularly strongly on outliers such as relatively very successful or unsuccessful people within their respective ethnic groups. Just let it sink in for a while: even children of the wealthiest blacks tend to do very poorly in school. This complicates the accumulation of wealth in black lineages and the development of, what used to be called "good families".