PDA

View Full Version : European IQ: Germans the Smartest People



Blutwölfin
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 08:19 AM
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif

Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south. The average brain size in Northern and Central Europe is 1,320cc and in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc. “The early human beings in northerly areas had to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and they were forced to hunt big game,” he said. “The main environmental influence on IQ is diet, and people in southeast Europe would have had less of the proteins, minerals and vitamins provided by meat which are essential for brain development.”

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html)

J.B. Basset
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 10:45 AM
Then eskimos, inuitts, sorry, should be ruling the world according to this theory. They live in a very cold and extreme climate, they are hunters, they have a large animal protein ingesta and they live far north...:D

Ahren_
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 11:02 AM
You might also consider the Mongolians whos diet consists almost entirely of protein. What they fail to address is the fact that countries such as Bulgaria and Turkey have some populations which retained the traditional agricultural farming lifestyles, detached from the industrialized cosmopolitan lifestyle. The countries still struggling to recover economically from the Soviet occupation naturally will have a poorer standard of living and consequently these populations usually have a lower literacy rate.

Mannerheim
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 03:55 PM
This research is a bit wrong cause Finland is in 12 place.

Finns are worlds most intelligent and most educated people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Asse ssment

Only the older finnish generation are idiots but the younger generation is worlds best in every aspect.

Wjatscheslaw
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Wow, I didn't know this...
Winters in Russia much more colder than in Europe and about invironments I keep silence at all, so make conclusions. ;)


(Nothern Europe in BW's definition have good thing to warm itself named Golfstream; Here in Russia we have damned cold wind's and deep snow... That's that)

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif

Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south. The average brain size in Northern and Central Europe is 1,320cc and in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc. “The early human beings in northerly areas had to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and they were forced to hunt big game,” he said. “The main environmental influence on IQ is diet, and people in southeast Europe would have had less of the proteins, minerals and vitamins provided by meat which are essential for brain development.”

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html)

</IMG></IMG>

Jäger
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 06:12 PM
Finns are worlds most intelligent and most educated people.
Intelligence is not education!

Well, since Germany is number one ... I like the article :D

Anyway, if they just made some IQ-Test, what's junk about that?

QuietWind
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 06:25 PM
Here are some more threads on this same topic:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=47648

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2740

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41661

OdinThor
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 07:28 PM
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif

Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south.

http://www.snpa.skadi.net/bilder/troe-map7a.jpg

Quite a good correlation, although it would be interesting to know how much immigrants polluted the studies.

Turks in Germany for example have an average IQ of 85, Russians of 90.

Zaborra
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 09:03 PM
I´d really want to know what results could basques have in this kind of tests. (I just curious :) )
Studies in Spain said that basques were the people in the state with less scholar failures...
Anyway,we shouldn´t believe all studies...
TURKS AREN´T MORE INTELLIGENT THAN SERBS!!! :mad

The Black Prince
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south.

The average brain size in Northern and Central Europe is 1,320cc and in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc.

Professor Lynn can say a lot, but the larger vaults are more likely of Cromagnid origin (and there are never old Cro-Magnons found with small crania!) most researches mention the overall decrease of cranial capacity of people all over Europe since the Ice-Age.

Only one of the last researches done shows maybe a slight increase of the cranial capacity since the last 600 years, because of headheight increase.

Thread about it:http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=47127

Also the numbers about the capacity are very global taken, Northern-Europe + Central-Europe on average 1320 cc (I suppose it is men and women).
Here are some more regional numbers sadly enough I don't have more recent measurements.

These are from 'Antropography of Terpia (1927), JDH Nyessen' and shows the average capacity of skulls belonging to different Germanic tribes (men and women). Included are two series of Swedes and Dutchmen from 1927.

Swiss Burgundians: 1451 cc. (Schwerz)
Alamanni of Augst: 1418 cc. (Schwerz)
Old Friterpians: 1484 cc. (Nyessen)
Old Groterpians: 1458 cc. (Nyessen)
Old Bavarians: 1419 cc. (Ranke)

NW-Germans 9th-14th century: 1422 cc.(Gildemeister)

Modern Dutchmen: 1425 cc. (Broca)
Modern Swedes: 1409 cc. (Valentin)

Jäger
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 10:29 PM
TURKS AREN´T MORE INTELLIGENT THAN SERBS!!! :mad
Well, while I think his conclusions can be doubted, I can't see how analysing IQ-Tests, and calculate a simple avarage is so under attack.
Maybe they are? Why not?

Mannerheim
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Intelligence is not education!

Well, since Germany is number one ... I like the article :D

Anyway, if they just made some IQ-Test, what's junk about that?


Intelligence isnt education.What do you think intelligence is?Or how can intelligence born?Intelligence and education have very strong connection.Do you think dog who has been taught tricks from several years beeing intelligent dog or well educated dog.In the end,they are the same thing.Training makes you best in all fields.Or if its intelligence to train hard,i dont know?This is getting too philosophical now.


I think germans are so well educated and all the things what you need in your life is in Germanys cultures in itselfs and what have been ennobled in heart of the europe for centuries.Germany is number one cause of its superior culture but things will change cause of globalization.You see now how China is growing and will be number one in all fields in future.


What were the criterions for intelligence?

Mannerheim
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 11:08 PM
Anyway, if they just made some IQ-Test, what's junk about that?

Sorry,i forgot to answer to this.

Well,this test defines who is the real europes master and like now we saw,it looks like germans are europes masters,at least mentally now and its good but i just wanted to show that finns are too quite clever people what normally europeans dont know.

Deling
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 12:05 AM
I think it should be remembered that the different IQ scores (from 107 to 89) is generalizing, and most scores only differ a few points. So without knowing from what kind of test subjects have been use to determine the scores (amount of city intelligentsia, town people, rural people, proletarian/highly educated a.s.o) they should be taken lightly. Not to mention that IQ scores are very relative, easily affected by concentration/over-focus on a part of the test a.s.o.
IQ tests are mostly relevant in 'full spectrum', determining whether a person suffers from trouble focusing, determining weak/positive sides (logic, executive abilities a.s.o) within a person, determining whether results from scores are caused by neuro-psychological dysfunctions.

I think people exaggerate IQ tests to actually mean something. Well, if someone is a mathematical/logical/creative mastermind and get a very high score; good for him! Intelligent, and has perhaps learned his weak/positive sides... but how the hell is it possible to IQ test WHOLE NATIONS? IQ can, in it's full form, only be compared between individual determining their respective abilities and disabilities. Wasn't it why that American invented IQ tests, for use in psychology? Now it's the measure of all things... so materialistic..

RusViking
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 02:10 AM
Please provide supporting studies demonstrating a positive correlation between cranial capacity and IQ.

Please provide supporting studies demonstrating a positive correlation between climate and IQ.

Siegmund
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 06:10 AM
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif

Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south. The average brain size in Northern and Central Europe is 1,320cc and in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc. “The early human beings in northerly areas had to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and they were forced to hunt big game,” he said. “The main environmental influence on IQ is diet, and people in southeast Europe would have had less of the proteins, minerals and vitamins provided by meat which are essential for brain development.”

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html)
I found this to be an odd article. First, the presumably malnourished Italians are only 5 points behind the Germans and Dutch, 4 behind the Poles, and 2 behind the Swedes. I doubt very much that a narrow margin is statistically significant, or can form an adequate scientific foundation for a hypothesis (theory, actually, since there's no practical way to test it empirically) based on diet.

Second, I wonder how Professor Lynn would reconcile the results of this study with his earlier findings (http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm):


Lynn and Vanhanen prove that the widespread though rarely stated assumption of economists and political scientists—that all peoples and nations have the same average IQ—is wildly wrong. Their evidence documents substantial national differences in average intelligence. The highest average IQs are found among the Oriental countries of North East Asia (average IQ = 104), followed by the European nations (average IQ = 98), and the mainly White populations of North America and Australasia (average IQ = 98). Further behind are the countries of South and Southwest Asia, from the Middle East through Turkey to India and Malaysia (average IQ = 87), as are the countries of South East Asia and the Pacific Islands (average IQ = 86), and Latin America and the Caribbean (IQ = 85). Lowest are the countries of Africa (average IQ = 70).
Do North East Asians have an especially high percentage of protein in their diets? Sure, the wealthier ones do, but as a whole? Something doesn't seem to make sense here.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 06:39 AM
http://www.snpa.skadi.net/bilder/troe-map7a.jpg

Quite a good correlation, although it would be interesting to know how much immigrants polluted the studies.

Turks in Germany for example have an average IQ of 85, Russians of 90.

Coon used this chart to make the point that the biggest headed people are in Jutland.

It seems to me I saw something about Swedish IQ of 107, somewhere. I hope you guys realize that these national IQs are closer together than you would find in individuals in a Kindergarten class. A few points means nothing for populations. It isn't until you compare these results to Sub-Saharan Africa that anything is explained in terms of IQ.

Siegfried
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 03:23 PM
It seems to me I saw something about Swedish IQ of 107, somewhere. I hope you guys realize that these national IQs are closer together than you would find in individuals in a Kindergarten class. A few points means nothing for populations. It isn't until you compare these results to Sub-Saharan Africa that anything is explained in terms of IQ.

I agree, and would like to add that racial concepts (such as Caucasoid and Mongoloid) have their limits in predicting IQ; I've seen tests where the IQ gap between the Netherlands and Japan was smaller than that between the Netherlands and Ireland or Greece.

SubGnostic
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Please provide supporting studies demonstrating a positive correlation between cranial capacity and IQ.
I also would like to see some.



Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south.

The average brain size in Northern and Central Europe is 1,320cc and in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc.
As "The Black Prince" mentioned, there has been studies which indicate decrease in the overall cranial capacity of people. And wouldn't the above also mean that men are smarter than women, since differences in cranial capacity between sexes do exist?



This research is a bit wrong cause Finland is in 12 place.

Finns are worlds most intelligent and most educated people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program...ent_Assessment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Asse ssment)

Only the older finnish generation are idiots but the younger generation is worlds best in every aspect. Well, number one causes of death in this nation of superior intellectuals are cardiovascular diseases and those resulted from alcohol. So does eating oneself to death and excess use of alcohol sound smart? Finns tend to be quite redneck-ish and somewhat ignorant and I dare to say the level of all-round education is a bit lower than in other parts of Europe. Do you know, for example, of the educational content in Russia? A Finnish student probably wouldn't stand such pace or stress. Of course this type of education has its own negative aspects but it sure "erottelee jyvät akanoista". Conversations between people of these new generations you write of, are here composed mostly of shallow crap about last nights american TV-shows. Well, this is a global trend... I think one problem in the Finnish educational system is that it does not turn more attention or stimulus towards gifted students - most likely because of the "everyone is equal" -crap that's quite strong here. Those educational comparisons are purely statistical; so the reason why Finland scored so high is probably because our ed.system drags the, uhm, "mental underdogs" along to fit in the average mass, and not because we are super talented.

OdinThor
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 04:43 PM
Coon used this chart to make the point that the biggest headed people are in Jutland.
Interesting.



It seems to me I saw something about Swedish IQ of 107, somewhere. I hope you guys realize that these national IQs are closer together than you would find in individuals in a Kindergarten class.

Of course as they are averages of the nations. Individuals always show more variation than averages.



A few points means nothing for populations. It isn't until you compare these results to Sub-Saharan Africa that anything is explained in terms of IQ.
If the numbers are big enough every difference means something. And in this case the difference between the first and the last isnt minimal but almost 20 points.

nicholas
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 06:06 PM
There's many types of intelligence. What type of intelligence did this particular test wish to measure.

OdinThor
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 06:24 PM
There's many types of intelligence. What type of intelligence did this particular test wish to measure.
It is not a particular test, but an average of different IQ-tests around the world in their respective countries. Usually IQ-tests are balanced to measure the different types of intelligence, like mathematical/logical skills or verbal skills.

nicholas
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 06:26 PM
It is not a particular test, but an average of different IQ-tests around the world in their respective countries. Usually IQ-tests are balanced to measure the different types of intelligence, like mathematical/logical skills or verbal skills.

If the tests were all different tests then a coorelation really cannot be made unless it was the same exact test given to all individuals tested.

OdinThor
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 06:36 PM
If the tests were all different tests then a coorelation really cannot be made unless it was the same exact test given to all individuals tested.

No that doesnt make sense. The question is if the different IQ-tests can be trusted to gain similar results when applied to the same persons.
If people in Europe measure the temperature with digital thermometers and people in Africa with mercury thermometers the results can still be used for climatical analysis although the methods have been different.

QuietWind
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 07:26 PM
As "The Black Prince" mentioned, there has been studies which indicate decrease in the overall cranial capacity of people. And wouldn't the above also mean that men are smarter than women, since differences in cranial capacity between sexes do exist?


http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38815

The Black Prince
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Coon used this chart to make the point that the biggest headed people are in Jutland.
Interesting.

Yes interesting since it only shows headlength + headbreadth and not headheight, which makes up poor evidence to count as biggest heads, and those with the largest HL + HB according to Coon's map are the Northern-Germans, Walloons and the West-Irish rather than the Jutish.

Hoarsewhisper
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 07:58 AM
.

" Germans the most smartest people"

He he, I find the grammar here very sweet...

But I wonder...how can ONE englishmans opinion be taken as some kind of objective truth?...:D

Surviving under tough climatic conditions claims plenty brains.
The nescessety of strong and warm shelters, vessels to conqueer the landscapes with, clothes to keep warm through a winter, and the tools nescessary to develop all this.

All together provoking Northlings to use the brain, invent, or go under.
Sloping around naked on a beach, waiting for the next banana to drop down into the hands, does unfortunately not give the same challenges, and the rewards for overcoming those challenges.

Also the quality of semen keeps better in temperated or cold climate, the rest is selfilluminative.

Cidron
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 09:36 AM
Then eskimos, inuitts, sorry, should be ruling the world according to this theory. They live in a very cold and extreme climate, they are hunters, they have a large animal protein ingesta and they live far north...:D

Why does a high IQ = world domination? :P
Ever hear of being humble?
It is usually a trait of some of the wisest of men. ;)



Intelligence isnt education.What do you think intelligence is?Or how can intelligence born?Intelligence and education have very strong connection.Do you think dog who has been taught tricks from several years beeing intelligent dog or well educated dog.In the end,they are the same thing.Training makes you best in all fields.Or if its intelligence to train hard,i dont know?This is getting too philosophical now.

There is a huge difference between intelligence and education.
An intelligent dog would completely ignore you, while you tried to educate it tricks to entertain you, and would go learn its own tricks and pursue its own interests. Thankfully there is no such thing as an intelligent dog or any sort of animal for that matter.
Intelligence is not how much facts you know, or how many things you know how to do or how well you do it.
Intelligence is knowing what to know, and knowing what to do.

OdinThor
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 04:11 PM
Please provide supporting studies demonstrating a positive correlation between cranial capacity and IQ.
I also would like to see some.


That is quite obvious, isnt it? Humans have the biggest brain and are the most intelligent beings. Mamals have a bigger brain than reptils and are also intelligenter etc.

But you can read more about the correlation here:

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/unknown-cranial

Jäger
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 04:25 PM
That is quite obvious, isnt it? Humans have the biggest brain and are the most intelligent beings. Whales have much bigger brains.
The better indication is a brain/body size ratio. Because the bigger the body, the more brain capacity is needed to get it function propperly.

OdinThor
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Whales have much bigger brains.
The better indication is a brain/body size ratio. Because the bigger the body, the more brain capacity is needed to get it function propperly.

That makes absolutely sense. But between humans that factor should be neglectable.

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/unknown-cranial

Gentilis
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006, 05:13 PM
The study has a lot of merit but it certainly isn't conclusive or definitive -- it simply paves the way for more studies and a deeper exploration of all the correlates currently theorized to be contributing factors in the promotion (I use the term to mean both nature and nurture) of intelligence.

Given that different countries have different percentages of indigenous white populations vs. foreign non-white populations, what does that say about data which makes no distinction between IQs in heterogenous populations and those within more homogenous populations?

Can we honestly say for example that the large population of blacks and maghrebs in France aren't contributing factors in bringing down the average IQ scores in that country?

SubGnostic
Saturday, April 1st, 2006, 01:14 PM
That is quite obvious, isnt it? Humans have the biggest brain and are the most intelligent beings. Mamals have a bigger brain than reptils and are also intelligenter etc.
So is it obvious that our distant ancestors were more intelligent than we are? Among humans the size is not as remarkable factor as the folding ("This folding allows more grey matter to fit into a smaller volume, similar to a really long slinky being able to fit into a tiny box when completely pushed together."), which affects the area. Negrid races ,for example, don't have as dense folding as Europids or Mongoloids.

http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic5/Images/IC5_page12.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Brains.jpg

SubGnostic
Saturday, April 1st, 2006, 03:21 PM
Intelligence is knowing what to know, and knowing what to do.
This is wisdom, not intelligence. :)

OdinThor
Saturday, April 1st, 2006, 10:41 PM
So is it obvious that our distant ancestors were more intelligent than we are?

Why not? The selection for intelligence hasnt been the best since some time.


Among humans the size is not as remarkable factor as the folding ("This folding allows more grey matter to fit into a smaller volume, similar to a really long slinky being able to fit into a tiny box when completely pushed together."), which affects the area. Negrid races ,for example, don't have as dense folding as Europids or Mongoloids.

They also have smaller brains. More brain more brainy is absolutely logical. It is shown in studies that there is a good correlation. Other factors are obviously involved, too, like you pointed out, but still the correlation can not be denied:

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/unknown-cranial

Northern Paladin
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006, 01:33 AM
The problem with these claims is that IQ may be too simplistic of a way to measure intelligence. And often times IQ samples/tests are in skewed.

The achievements of civilization are the best way to measure the intelligence of the people who constructed them. In that regards intelligence is more of a universal trait of humanity.

SubGnostic
Friday, April 7th, 2006, 02:53 PM
Why not? The selection for intelligence hasnt been the best since some time.

Well, it happened to be not quite obvious, afterall, that the human brain is the largest. By distant ancestors I was referring to pre-Sapiens forms of Homo. Larger brain does not necessarily mean larger area, more neurons and more axons. If the correlation of brain size and intelligence were absolute, then we would have to acknowledge the elephant's superiority over man. The fact that the predecessors of Homo Sapiens had larger cranial capacity would also indicate that the brain is capable of evolving into more complex and efficient forms. Compare the size of the first electrical computer developed to the size of modern computers, can't such development occur also in nature? In the current state of man the brain size-intelligence correlation is possible, but it is more likely to be an exceptional individual trait, for as you said: the selection for intelligence hasn't been the best since some time (though China has a eugenics program, and currently there are more people with an IQ 160 or over in China than anywhere else). This matter could be investigated by examining the brains of geniuses and comparing the possible differences with the more average masses.


The problem with these claims is that IQ may be too simplistic of a way to measure intelligence. And often times IQ samples/tests are in skewed.

The achievements of civilization are the best way to measure the intelligence of the people who constructed them. In that regards intelligence is more of a universal trait of humanity.

Well, they are to test the Intelligence Quotient of a person, not intelligence.
The achievements of a civilization is perhaps a way to measure the intelligence of the people as a whole, but people aren't equal in mental traits. So when it comes to individual differences... And whose intelligence would the achievements of a civilization measure? Theirs who give the the orders or theirs who carry out the orders? The greatness of a civilization is relative. So this doesn't give a precise picture the mental capabilities of peoples.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, April 8th, 2006, 12:36 AM
Well, it happened to be not quite obvious, afterall, that the human brain is the largest. By distant ancestors I was referring to pre-Sapiens forms of Homo. Larger brain does not necessarily mean larger area, more neurons and more axons. If the correlation of brain size and intelligence were absolute, then we would have to acknowledge the elephant's superiority over man. The fact that the predecessors of Homo Sapiens had larger cranial capacity would also indicate that the brain is capable of evolving into more complex and efficient forms. Compare the size of the first electrical computer developed to the size of modern computers, can't such development occur also in nature? In the current state of man the brain size-intelligence correlation is possible, but it is more likely to be an exceptional individual trait, for as you said: the selection for intelligence hasn't been the best since some time (though China has a eugenics program, and currently there are more people with an IQ 160 or over in China than anywhere else). This matter could be investigated by examining the brains of geniuses and comparing the possible differences with the more average masses.



Well, they are to test the Intelligence Quotient of a person, not intelligence.
The achievements of a civilization is perhaps a way to measure the intelligence of the people as a whole, but people aren't equal in mental traits. So when it comes to individual differences... And whose intelligence would the achievements of a civilization measure? Theirs who give the the orders or theirs who carry out the orders? The greatness of a civilization is relative. So this doesn't give a precise picture the mental capabilities of peoples.

In the current state of man the brain size-intelligence correlation is possible, but it is more likely to be an exceptional individual trait, for as you said: the selection for intelligence hasn't been the best since some time (though China has a eugenics program, and currently there are more people with an IQ 160 or over in China than anywhere else)

Where are you getting those figures from?

Civilization is a better way to measure the genius of the sum of a people...that is to say a Race. I'm not referring to it's greatness which is subject to interpretation but its Technological development.

I see your point. While IQ may be a less than perfect measure of intelligence it is still the only way we have to measure individual differences in intelligence.

SubGnostic
Monday, July 17th, 2006, 08:05 PM
Ah, it's been a while since I've been able to access a computer. So, let's resume this conversation.


Where are you getting those figures from? I didn't find the figures, so my claim is probably wrong. But it is a fact that China has a eugenics program to enhance the overall intelligence of the population. Weak-headed people aren't even allowed to marry unless they have been sterilized.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1999_Sept/ai_56027286#continue
Lynn has also written about this:
http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1
And asians seem to thrive in international comparisons of mathematical skills and problem solving:
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/6783/snapshot3ux9.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,2340,en_32252351_32236173_35188685_1_1 _1_1,00.html
Check Appendix 3

http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_32252351_32236173_33917573_1_1 _1_1,00.html

Regarding culture... I assume that you believe in the Aryan invasion theory. There is evidence of the early Egyptian dynasties of being racially Aryan, atleast the rulers, priests and supposedly engineers. But nevertheless Egypt stood fairly negrid for thousands of years. So for whom to give credit of it's achievements? There hasn't been any great pre-christian cultures in northern Europe, though I admit there is Christian bias in examining and evaluating the heathen cultures.

Compare, let's say, bronze age China (circa 2000BC-700BC) with it's big cities and grand palaces to bronze age (Central)Europe (circa 1800-700BC) with it's tiny villages and shabby cottages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age
http://www.artsmia.org/art-of-asia/history/chinese-dynasty-guide.cfm
Writing in China: http://www.ancientscripts.com/chinese.html (since 1500BCE)
Writin in northern Europe: http://www.ancientscripts.com/futhark.html (200 CE to 1600 CE)

OdinThor
Monday, July 17th, 2006, 11:04 PM
There hasn't been any great pre-christian cultures in northern Europe, though I admit there is Christian bias in examining and evaluating the heathen cultures.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Solvogn.jpg
http://www.himmelsscheibe-online.de/pics/himmelsscheibe.jpg
http://www.mamilade.de/img/img.3296.jpg

http://www.scholiast.org/history/denmark/danhist1.html
http://www.himmelsscheibe-online.de/englisch_main_neu.htm
http://www.pfahlbauten.de/

Thusnelda
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 12:03 AM
That is the "Himmelsscheibe von Nebra", isnt it? ;)

SubGnostic
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 12:17 AM
That is the "Himmelsscheibe von Nebra", isnt it?
Yes, I posted a topic regarding this, under "Prehistoric Archaeology"

Pro-Alpine
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 03:35 AM
Is it known what European Country is the most ignorant?

OdinThor
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 07:07 AM
That is the "Himmelsscheibe von Nebra", isnt it? ;)
Yes it is. The other two are the "Chariot of Trundholm" and the "Pfahlbauten" in Bavaria. All are in fact witnesses of Northern European Bronze Age cultures.

The following is an example of the highly sophisticated Iron Age culture in Denmark:

http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Dejbjerg.jpg
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Dejbjerg2.jpg

The Dejbjerg wagon. (http://www.cofman.co.uk/denmark/attractions/museums-collections/south-jutland/dejbjerg-iron-age-town.html)

Jäger
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006, 09:32 AM
Yes it is. The other two are the "Chariot of Trundholm" and the "Pfahlbauten" in Bavaria. Unteruhldingen is in Swabia, Baden-Württemberg :)

SubGnostic
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006, 05:10 PM
The following is an example of the highly sophisticated Iron Age culture in Denmark

Seemingly advanced, though I wouldn't consider it to be a superior feat.
And to have little or none literary relics is quite a flaw for a sophisticated civilization. Of course their way of living, governing, maintaining society wouldnt've necessarily required this for they lived tradition.

Admirer of Perun
Tuesday, July 25th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Brain size/IQ Relation study: http://cogprints.org/1369/00/IQTAN2.pdf
Another study where the European gap is MUCH smaller: http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm :D

Dropkick
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 03:01 AM
There are more highly intelligent people recorded in Ireland than in any other country. Mensa, an association of people with high IQs, says Ireland has the highest figure of Mensa members in the world.

Irish people have big heads also. Lynn is from Northern Ireland and I'm presuming he's from the Unionist community. The Northern Irish have very high IQ's (I forget the num but it's over 100) according to Lynn. Since nearly half the Northern Irish population are nationalists (like the republic population) their IQ is 97. By doing the maths this would make the Northern Irish unionist community the smartest people in the world.

Pervitinist
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Is it known what European Country is the most ignorant?

Albania?

OdinThor
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 07:28 PM
There are more highly intelligent people recorded in Ireland than in any other country. Mensa, an association of people with high IQs, says Ireland has the highest figure of Mensa members in the world.

Do you have a source? That would be in line with a theory of mine.

The findings of Lynn regarding irish IQ seem to be contrary to your statement however.

some_one_number_one
Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 12:00 AM
Poles are on third position, nothing special :D

Mr_Doctor
Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 07:45 PM
dont forget the dutch they have also 107 then the smartest are german and dutch

and almost no difference with poles :D

Pro-Alpine
Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 11:57 PM
Other IQ results of European peoples differs quite a bit.

Spjabork
Monday, November 13th, 2006, 08:04 AM
Do you have a source? That would be in line with a theory of mine.
Tell me more about your theory. :)

You mean, the irish are the super-master race? :D I doubt.

OdinThor
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006, 10:07 AM
Tell me more about your theory. :)

-->

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17037466&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

I wonder why Agrippa (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=1618) hasnt put light skin as a progressive (http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=82307&d=1160519711&) trait in humans. Its the most obvious, imo.

Spjabork
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006, 11:05 AM
I wonder why Agrippa (http://forums.skadi.net/member.php?u=1618) hasnt put light skin as a progressive (http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=82307&d=1160519711&) trait in humans. Its the most obvious, imo.
Some mongolids are quite light-skinned.

"A whiter shade of pale", so to speak. :D

OdinThor
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006, 12:40 PM
Some mongolids are quite light-skinned.

"A whiter shade of pale", so to speak. :D

There are even blond ones.

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/img/126/0,1886,2334718,00.jpg

Generally the east-asians are the pale ones, and also the most intelligent.

Ragnar Thorsson
Wednesday, November 15th, 2006, 10:57 AM
European IQ: Germans the smartest people

This title should be '' Germans and the Dutch smartest people since we have also 107. What a crap...:| :thumbdown

Pervitinist
Thursday, November 16th, 2006, 09:01 PM
This title should be '' Germans and the Dutch smartest people since we have also 107. What a crap...:| :thumbdown

Aren't the Dutch Germans-in-denial anyway? :D

Saxnot
Friday, April 17th, 2009, 04:48 PM
If cold whether is the catalyst for the development of IQ, why is Italy ranked higher then some of the northern countries? I saw some people argue that Italians may not even be considered whites, yet, their cultural achievements speak either wise. What is it about this people anyway? They seem to be extremely primitive and uncouth on one side, and immensely creative on the other.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 08:03 AM
If cold whether is the catalyst for the development of IQ, why is Italy ranked higher then some of the northern countries? I saw some people argue that Italians may not even be considered whites, yet, their cultural achievements speak either wise. What is it about this people anyway? They seem to be extremely primitive and uncouth on one side, and immensely creative on the other.

Cultural achievements? Eh? You mean opera?


And the Italians are not the same as Romans. And even then, the Romans were never that technologically advanced. The Romans had a hard time dealing with the Carthaginians and only had their luck improved when a Carthaginian vessel washed ashore in near-perfect condition.
Likewise, Roman military technology took a huge leap when the Romans conquered Cisapline Gaul and adopted chain metal and Celtic metal working.
Most of Rome's intellectual genius came from outside of the Italian peninsula...


And the Germanic people were an integral component of that Empire. One of the factors that contributed to Rome's decline was when the Roman mob went out and massacred the families of Germanic-Romans, who were easily identifiable by their light-hair, light-skin, light-eyes and height.

Saxnot
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Cultural achievements? Eh? You mean opera?


No, i meant, erm, i don't know, how about the RENAISSANCE?

Their contribution to the development of music isn't limited to Opera, btw. They flat out revolutionized the entire concept of harmony and they produced the first truly great tonal composer (Monteverdi), which paved the way to western music as we know it.



Most of Rome's intellectual genius came from outside of the Italian peninsula...


The intellectual achievements of the Romans are actually over-rated, particularly when compared to their Greek forerunners, whom they imitated without adding anything new or original. The genius of Rome lied in its legal apparatus and the moral strength of its peoples, at least early on. They were never an artistic race.

BTW, i'm not necessarily objecting to the idea the Nordic races are superior to other Europoids, i just find the cold whether theory to be unsatisfying.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 09:54 PM
No, i meant, erm, i don't know, how about the RENAISSANCE?

Their contribution to the development of music isn't limited to Opera, btw. They flat out revolutionized the entire concept of harmony and they produced the first truly great tonal composer (Monteverdi), which paved the way to western music as we know it.



The intellectual achievements of the Romans are actually over-rated, particularly when compared to their Greek forerunners, whom they imitated without adding anything new or original. The genius of Rome lied in its legal apparatus and the moral strength of its peoples, at least early on. They were never an artistic race.

BTW, i'm not necessarily objecting to the idea the Nordic races are superior to other Europoids, i just find the cold whether theory to be unsatisfying.


Who said anything about cold terrain? The Asians of Siberia were still at a stone-age level when Russian explorers encountered them.

goidelicwarrior
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 09:41 AM
Cultural achievements? Eh? You mean opera?


And the Italians are not the same as Romans. And even then, the Romans were never that technologically advanced. The Romans had a hard time dealing with the Carthaginians and only had their luck improved when a Carthaginian vessel washed ashore in near-perfect condition.
Likewise, Roman military technology took a huge leap when the Romans conquered Cisapline Gaul and adopted chain metal and Celtic metal working.
Most of Rome's intellectual genius came from outside of the Italian peninsula...


And the Germanic people were an integral component of that Empire. One of the factors that contributed to Rome's decline was when the Roman mob went out and massacred the families of Germanic-Romans, who were easily identifiable by their light-hair, light-skin, light-eyes and height. u think one builds an empire on luck? :D not advanced ? :D aqueducts, roads, temples, the whole administration of the empire etc , one could go on and on...keep to the facts...;)

Huginn ok Muninn
Monday, April 20th, 2009, 11:16 AM
The comment about cold climates should have been expanded upon. This is certainly not the only obstacle Germanics had to overcome. Germanic civilizations faced challenges of shipbuilding, agriculture in harsher climates, and dealing with making coastal wetlands livable places. They also had to deal with the challenge of fighting a technologically superior foe in the Romans. There is thus a continuous weeding out of inferior intelligence going on. Where there are challenges of any kind in survival, there is bound to be a need for more intelligent people to solve these problems. These people will be successful in society and have more offspring, creating a smarter overall population.

TheGreatest
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 04:31 PM
u think one builds an empire on luck? :D not advanced ? :D aqueducts, roads, temples, the whole administration of the empire etc , one could go on and on...keep to the facts...;)


So? The Mongols had a much larger Empire and the Mongols in contemporary Mongolia are not the smartest needle in the haystack. All it takes to create an Empire is a willingness to use the sword and oppress people.
And many of those architectural techniques came from Carthage, Greece and Cisalpine Gual.

Saxnot
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:05 PM
And many of those architectural techniques came from Carthage, Greece and Cisalpine Gual.

While the architectural techniques of the Carthaginians and the Greeks came from Mesopotamia and Egypt, so what's your point? The moral and administrative powers of the Romans were superior to any of those civilizations, particularly the Greeks, who's civilization resembled Italy during the Renaissance with all those petty city states and their endless disputes and moral bankruptcy. The Roman law is the greatest legislative apparatus in the entire history of civilization until modern times. If that isn't a testament to their intellectual powers, i don't know what to say.

baroqueorgan
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009, 04:17 PM
Again, as has been mentioned before, average IQ studies by nation are semi-irrelevant since they indiscriminately mix together the results of every different ethnicity from blacks to whites to arabs to east asians. A lower average IQ may only be a sign of more non-europeans in the country.

Archeopteryx
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 09:43 AM
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,282652,00.gif

Professor Lynn said that populations in the colder, more challenging environments of Northern Europe had developed larger brains than those in warmer climates further south. The average brain size in Northern and Central Europe is 1,320cc and in southeast Europe it is 1,312cc. “The early human beings in northerly areas had to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and they were forced to hunt big game,” he said. “The main environmental influence on IQ is diet, and people in southeast Europe would have had less of the proteins, minerals and vitamins provided by meat which are essential for brain development.”

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html)

I am afraid that the good professor is wrong on his statement about brain size and intelligence as the two do NOT correlate. I should know I have a PhD in neuroscience.

Hanna
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 04:53 PM
I am afraid that the good professor is wrong on his statement about brain size and intelligence as the two do NOT correlate. I should know I have a PhD in neuroscience.

Poles are smarter than Scandinavians? No way...:D

Ocko
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 05:23 PM
Poles live on german soil. the 3rd Reich never dissoveld itself but is still legally existent. The FRG is just a puppet regime installed by the Allies and has no legitimation at all.

Where Polish people live today was the heartland of Prussia. Their achievements might still linger on there in the german people who survived the ethnic cleansing of Poles and Russians.

If one considers the amount of scientific achievements a people produces then one can say that even in the jewish rigged noble-prize system germans (germanics) did the most. Polands have no scientific achievements at all. they even try to appropiate Nikolas Kopernikus because he lived in now from Poland occupied cities. (His brother was actually a german nationalist as shown in letters between the 2 brothers).

If one considers scientific achievements especially in math and the contributions german scholars brought to it it is just staggering.

Untersberger
Saturday, January 9th, 2010, 05:25 PM
Poles are smarter than Scandinavians? No way...:D

The ??Poles?? tested were probably from the German enclave of Oppeln

in slavic form its called Opole..

Grant
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Doesn't this possibly show the level of education in countries?. Possibly with a few exceptions (Poland, Ireland, ect) most of it almost entirely decreases with wealth (But annoyingly enough, latitude too, so this cannot be proven.) - I'm no economist, so correct me if I'm wrong. My theory aside, I do see the correlation.

Following GDP map taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Europe)

http://i49.tinypic.com/5ohzd0.jpg

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, August 17th, 2010, 03:14 AM
Interesting. It makes perfect sense... :)

you know Marilyn vos Savant is of Austrian (Germanic) descent, and she was in the Guinness Book of Records for a long time as the woman with the highest recorded IQ until they decided IQ is not a PC concept.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, August 26th, 2010, 04:35 PM
I have to agree, Bulgarians are not very intelligent, this is evident by their choice of names:

Ivan Ivanov
Jordan Jordanov
Jivko Jivkov
Miro Mirov
Dano Danov
Anton Antonov
Bogdan Bogdanov

husband: uuuuh whaa to name child?
wife: whaa you last name?
husband: last name Manov
wife: so we name child Mano
husband: child name is Mano Manov

kaneslater
Thursday, August 26th, 2010, 10:00 PM
The ??Poles?? tested were probably from the German enclave of Oppeln

in slavic form its called Opole..

On the other hand I think:

1. Either we accept the IQ testing as done with its resulting superiority of the Germans and a second place for the Poles;
or we disregard it altogether

in addition, it would be pretty sad if Germany's neighbour who managed to occupy some German lands and to resist both the Russians and the Germans consisted of a bunch of idiots.;)

Schattenjäger
Monday, September 20th, 2010, 04:06 PM
It is not surprising at all that the Germans are in the first place.

And don't forget that polish population consists large numbers of people of germanic descent who immigrated from the Reich in middle ages and were later polonized in early modern period... almost all cities in medieval Poland were built by german settlers.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 02:50 AM
I can't help but think of "Polish jokes" when I see Poland in 3rd Place...

how many Polacks does it take to screw in a light bulb? 3, one to stand on the chair and hold the light bulb, and 2 to spin the chair around.

Lol no offense to my fellow Europeans.

Frostmane
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 01:16 AM
I've seen probably atleast a dozen of these IQ per country graphs.
I think almost everyone of them had Germany and the Netherlands tied for first.
I do also recall sweden always being high, the highest of scandinavia.
Not sure about Poland tho.

Schooneveld
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:32 PM
It is not surprising at all that the Germans are in the first place.Ofcourse its not surprising! It is widely known that the letter G comes sooner than the letter N in the alphabet. :|

Wulfram
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:33 PM
Ofcourse its not surprising! It is widely known that the letter G comes sooner than the letter N in the alphabet. :|

G = genius. ;) Germany has had far more than the rest.
But since we are all Germanics would it not be more fair to assume that the G you speak = Germanics?

velvet
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 05:39 PM
Ofcourse its not surprising! It is widely known that the letter G comes sooner than the letter N in the alphabet. :|

Nah, dont be sad, it's a bit weird that this list places Netherlands second despite having the same count.

So be proud with me ;)

:victory

Hevneren
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 08:08 PM
So be proud with me ;)

Says the German with a Norwegian flag as her avatar. ;)

velvet
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 08:12 PM
Says the German with a Norwegian flag as her avatar. ;)

What's puzzling you there? ;)

Thusnelda
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 08:14 PM
Says the German with a Norwegian flag as her avatar. ;)
I doubt it´s a Norwegian flag. It´s a former suggestion for a new German flag with red-yellow-black colors in Scandinavian style. Can´t find a link yet. ;)

velvet
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 08:23 PM
I doubt it´s a Norwegian flag. It´s a former suggestion for a new German flag with red-yellow-black colors in Scandinavian style. Can´t find a link yet. ;)

Ehem ;) well, it IS a Norwegian flag, and the duck is a gene-manipulated Norwegian troll duck from ancient times* called "Villanden", and because she's been abducted by me to Germany, I thought it's nice for her to have something familiar with her :wsg

*she has more history (that's only the cover up) :D


But I like the idea to have a Scandinavian-style as German flag too ;)


[Moderation note: follow-up discussion on proposed flags has been split and merged into this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1057587#post1057587).]

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:31 PM
Well, it is essentially pseudo-science. Especially when Lynn tries to contrive a biological theory out of what dubious 'facts' he has. As far as I know, his 'study' was just a meta-analysis, meaning that these scores aren't derived from one universally administered culture-free test at all.

I don't think any theory that places Poles 12 IQ points above the French should really be taken seriously. Also, the theory doesn't account for the massive differences between northern Europeans (Germans 107 and Danes only 99, really?), nor does it explain why, historically, S. Europe has been a thousand-fold richer in cultural contribution than E. Europe or N E. Europe.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:44 PM
I have to agree, Bulgarians are not very intelligent, this is evident by their choice of names:

Ivan Ivanov
Jordan Jordanov
Jivko Jivkov
Miro Mirov
Dano Danov
Anton Antonov
Bogdan Bogdanov

husband: uuuuh whaa to name child?
wife: whaa you last name?
husband: last name Manov
wife: so we name child Mano
husband: child name is Mano Manov

Well, the same could be said of Serbs. Who'd want to go through life with a name like Slobodan? It would only invite trouble.

Echo
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 09:50 PM
Yes, and are the Germans some sort of alien race? Look and you'll see what I mean... :thumbup

German father of modern science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler

German fathers of biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Friedrich_Burdach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus

German father of anthropology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hundt

German father of homeopathy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hahnemann

German fathers of naturopathy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Ehret

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Lust

German father of zoology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus

German father of experimental psychology (Yes, where they first actually used neuro-biological research to back their claims!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wundt

German father of ecology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel


And many many many 'ologies' more... I don't think I should have to waste my breath, eh?

Even the very word 'technology' is from the German word 'Technik'...

The meanings of technology changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists, beginning with Thorstein Veblen, translated ideas from the German concept of Technik into "technology." In German and other European languages, a distinction exists between Technik and Technologie that is absent in English, as both terms are usually translated as "technology."


So what happened? Why are our people so brilliant compared to the rest?


I also believe the Greeks are (or were before immigration) a large part of the building blocks for German invention and exploration...


And lastly, those of Jewish origin (and when I say Jewish I do mean khazar ashkenazi) have the highest IQs and are in the highest positions with the highest genetic ability to attain and maintain monetary funds.

Schooneveld
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 10:23 PM
Nah, dont be sad, it's a bit weird that this list places Netherlands second despite having the same count.

So be proud with me ;)

:victoryYou are right. ;) From all the Germanic nations we are the most germanicness. :thumbsup

@echo
*cough* The word technology comes from the Greek technología (τεχνολογία) *cough*:P

Echo
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 10:35 PM
@echo
*cough* The word technology comes from the Greek technología (τεχνολογία) *cough*:P

Yes, you are correct in a sense, but the modern meaning of the word can only be attributed to the Germans.

The meanings of technology changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists, beginning with Thorstein Veblen, translated ideas from the German concept of Technik into "technology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

Schooneveld
Saturday, January 22nd, 2011, 12:14 AM
Yes, you are correct in a sense, but the modern meaning of the word can only be attributed to the Germans.Correct. ;)

Eiriksson
Saturday, January 22nd, 2011, 01:38 PM
I'm close to believe, that there are different kinds of IQ.
Jews and semitics who used to live on deserts are good at abstract thinking, that's why they're good at Maths, Physics, trade, business, economical sciences, but also they're good writers directors etc. mostly things that require imagination which works very logically and do not require correspondence with visual world.
But it seems they're awful in any subjects that requires more hmm practical thinking, natural sciences, agriculture, engineering, technics, which perhaps are much more domain of white people.
I've met lot of people who were brilliant at complicated practical professions, mostly technicians, but it was hard time to them understand abstract ideas with no correspondence with visual world like maths etc.

I've met people who were other way around too.

boltofnite
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, 10:03 AM
http://www.velcro-city.co.uk/european-iq-rankingsgermans-come-in-top/

According to this site, Germans are number 1 highest IQ in europe with Dutch in 2nd.

DerWeißeWehrwolf
Saturday, January 29th, 2011, 04:45 AM
Proof that German people are the smartest in the world..

Look at America's military break-throughs after WW2. They were all done by Third Reich engineers, scientists, astro-physicists, etc. that were forced into American concentration camps to build new technologies..

Mjolnir
Saturday, January 29th, 2011, 04:56 AM
This is a one sided thread.
We all know the Germans scored the same as the Dutch (on average that is).
The highest scores in Europe were Dutch and German (measured over 2005-2010). The average IQ 106/107.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkDlcX5m07E&feature=fvw

(sources mentioned within the video)

107

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zugMl3qvKI&feature=related

(sources metioned within the video)


To put those AVERAGE figures in perspective: Africans score 75 on average. Black Americans 80/85. Southern Asians aroud 85/90.

Mjolnir
Saturday, January 29th, 2011, 05:07 AM
Nah, dont be sad, it's a bit weird that this list places Netherlands second despite having the same count.

So be proud with me ;)

:victory

True....although my suspicion is we Dutch are on top :D

Wynterwade
Saturday, January 29th, 2011, 08:48 PM
European IQ: Germans the Smartest People

Would be great to have scientists ask "Why are Germans the smartest?"
1) Maybe a recent bottle neck due to Nazi Eugenics?
2) Maybe due to German culture valuing intelligence more highly than other societies for a long period of time?
3) Maybe the effects of War affected lower society more than higher society?
4) Germans typically waited much later (8 years longer) to get married than the British. I wonder if this over time allowed them to be more selective in their partner selection. (Even Tacitus said this 2000 years ago- and in America the German immigrants throughout our history got married on average at 27 while the British average was about 19).

Maybe a combination of all 4?

I want to know.

Mjolnir
Sunday, January 30th, 2011, 09:01 PM
Would be great to have scientists ask "Why are Germans the smartest?"
1) Maybe a recent bottle neck due to Nazi Eugenics?
2) Maybe due to German culture valuing intelligence more highly than other societies for a long period of time?
3) Maybe the effects of War affected lower society more than higher society?
4) Germans typically waited much later (8 years longer) to get married than the British. I wonder if this over time allowed them to be more selective in their partner selection. (Even Tacitus said this 2000 years ago- and in America the German immigrants throughout our history got married on average at 27 while the British average was about 19).

Maybe a combination of all 4?

I want to know.

Correction!
Not only the Germans score highest. Germans AND Dutch scored equal (without Danes considered in the European IQ Score).

In Holland Eugenics wasn't mainstream science and in Germany it was considered science for about 50 years, not enough to have it's influence on generations.
It might be genetically.


Still, I think we can do better on average...

MCP3
Sunday, January 30th, 2011, 11:52 PM
Would be great to have scientists ask "Why are Germans the smartest?"
1) Maybe a recent bottle neck due to Nazi Eugenics?
2) Maybe due to German culture valuing intelligence more highly than other societies for a long period of time?
3) Maybe the effects of War affected lower society more than higher society?
4) Germans typically waited much later (8 years longer) to get married than the British. I wonder if this over time allowed them to be more selective in their partner selection. (Even Tacitus said this 2000 years ago- and in America the German immigrants throughout our history got married on average at 27 while the British average was about 19).

Maybe a combination of all 4?

I want to know.
None of it at all, it didn't help the Germans as they apparently bear a political class (they have no at all btw, unlike the French and the Anglo-Saxons) to make miscalculations of the worst, thus acting stupid. And because they have no "ruling elite " at all the rulers they put in power act at times little worldly, if not short sighted.

To your point 4: There is no evidence for this, please back that up rather than just saying it.

You may also wonder why in the fields classic arts and classic music the Germans excel, why the Anglo-Saxons despite them being 70% of German stock did not (in the past). There is only 1 answer possible:

It is not genetic, it is their language or in the broader sense, the culture. And the Dutch language is very close related to the German language, closer than the English. The German Spirit is not necessarily bound to German nationals/individuals, it can manifest itself also into non-German/non-Germanic individuals and can reappear in a complete different environment.

This Spirit is also inside the Dutch/Vlaams people, and also inside the English, though in a different form.

It is not a matter of genetics, and the most pure Germanics are not the Germans or the English but the Scandinavians because they live relative protected by natural barriers on their peninsula.

Mjolnir
Monday, January 31st, 2011, 12:12 AM
None of it at all, it didn't help the Germans as they apparently bear a political class (they have no at all btw, unlike the French and the Anglo-Saxons) to make miscalculations of the worst, thus acting stupid. And because they have no "ruling elite " at all the rulers they put in power act at times little worldly, if not short sighted.

To your point 4: There is no evidence for this, please back that up rather than just saying it.

You may also wonder why in the fields classic arts and classic music the Germans excel, why the Anglo-Saxons despite them being 70% of German stock did not (in the past). There is only 1 answer possible:

It is not genetic, it is their language or in the broader sense, the culture. And the Dutch language is very close related to the German language, closer than the English. The German Spirit is not necessarily bound to German nationals/individuals, it can manifest itself also into non-German/non-Germanic individuals and can reappear in a complete different environment.

This Spirit is also inside the Dutch/Vlaams people, and also inside the English, though in a different form.

It is not a matter of genetics, and the most pure Germanics are not the Germans or the English but the Scandinavians because they live relative protected by natural barriers on their peninsula.


I agree to disagree, partly that is.

First of all, not only the Germans excel in classical arts, how about Rembrandt, Breughel, Steen, Van Gogh? Those are only the most obvious I have metioned.

We (Germanics) developed a fine classical art/music/philosophy history, which is part of our cultural identity nowadays. These traits (in its own form) will come back in further Germanic generations, these are bound to our genetics, especially within the form it was created.

The French can boast about their culture too though...the French WERE Germanic(Franks), since they got mixed they have put out a significant lesser portion of culture than they used to (Voltaire, Chopin etc).


If one looks at a more modern artistic Germanic influence: Appel, the COBRA movement..Armin van Buren/Tiesto for all I care. It's still leading cultrually (LEITKULTUR).

Futhermore let's not forget Shakespear and the English scientists.......

It has to be genetic. Which other offspring can boast about Wagner, Brahms, Nietzsche, Rembrandt, Breughel, Shakespear etc while they have relatively less people than the hordes of brown Persians/ Arabs, Africans and Russians?

Wynterwade
Monday, January 31st, 2011, 03:56 PM
To your point 4: There is no evidence for this, please back that up rather than just saying it.

As for what Tacitus said read the book "Germania". Here are a few of my favorite quotes!
Paragraph 20 "The young men marry late and their vigour is thus unimpaired. Nor are the maidens hurried into marriage; the same age and a similar stature is required; well-matched and vigorous they wed, and the offspring reporduce the strength of the parents."

Paragraph 19 "Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt"

Paragraph 18 "This they count their most sacred bond of union (marriage)"

Paragraph 18 "Their marraige code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy. Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife"

Paragraph 19"They recieve one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further reaching desires.... to limit the number of their children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere."

I think he also wrote about England and I haven't read it yet but I believe he says they marry young, and adultery is looked at as common- which is the complete opposite of Germany. (though this very well could be due to roman luxury lifestyle influence- but regardless of what caused it- there was a difference existing at the year 100 between Germany and England)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They've done studies on ancestry calculating the average age married for immigrant populations in America. (all the census data is available going back 400 years)

The result was a 7 year difference in age at marriage between German and British (mainly English) immigrants.

I'm having trouble finding the documentation. But it was done by ancestry dot com- which is a very reputable website.




None of it at all, it didn't help the Germans as they apparently bear a political class (they have no at all btw, unlike the French and the Anglo-Saxons) to make miscalculations of the worst, thus acting stupid.
There's too much I don't agree with you, MCPThree, on but this quote sums up the jist of things. How can you give no evidence against my four possibilities- then say that there is no way any of my 4 ideas are correct. You are the one who is "making miscalculations."

Juthunge
Monday, January 31st, 2011, 09:50 PM
As for what Tacitus said read the book "Germania". Here are a few of my favorite quotes!
Paragraph 20 "The young men marry late and their vigour is thus unimpaired. Nor are the maidens hurried into marriage; the same age and a similar stature is required; well-matched and vigorous they wed, and the offspring reporduce the strength of the parents."

Paragraph 19 "Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt"

Paragraph 18 "This they count their most sacred bond of union (marriage)"

Paragraph 18 "Their marraige code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy. Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife"

Paragraph 19"They recieve one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further reaching desires.... to limit the number of their children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere."

I think he also wrote about England and I haven't read it yet but I believe he says they marry young, and adultery is looked at as common- which is the complete opposite of Germany. (though this very well could be due to roman luxury lifestyle influence- but regardless of what caused it- there was a difference existing at the year 100 between Germany and England)

I'm not trying to refute you but I'd take Tacitus with a grain of salt since his main concern was basically to contrast the then degenerated Roman society with a healthy and moral Germanic one.

Wynterwade
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011, 05:55 PM
since his main concern was basically to contrast the then degenerated Roman society with a healthy and moral Germanic one.

He also talks about the bad of German society (being lazy and drinking he says) so clearly his main concern was not to contrast the high morals of Germania to the bad degeneratness of the Roman Empire (otherwise his sections on the bad parts of German society would have been left out). Since he gives both sides of the story, I feel, that the book is overwhelminly a comprehensive (covering many aspects of German society, and tribal differences), unbaised (telling both the good and bad) account of German society. His book is intended to be an educational book covering society, religion, tribes, customs etc.

In a handful of sentances he finds it striking how German morals contrasted with Roman morals- and he points that out. But I don't see how those 3-4 sentances would change the entire topic of his book from educational into boasting about a different foregin ethnic group at his own ethnic groups expense.

After world war two people began calling this book "the most dangerous book ever written". Why do they think this? Because it says German society was highly moral, monogomous, brave and valued chastity. How is this dangerous to say?

Maybe Tacitus had an agenda trying to get people to quit having wars with Germania. But then why would he call Germans lazy and heavy drinkers and a bit barbaric? And if this is the case, why didn't he spend ANY time talking about inter German-Roman relations. That just doesn't make sense to me.

If you would like to point something out to me or tell me how it could be biased I'd love to hear it. I just don't see really any possible bias in 99% of the book.

(I'm still amazed at some of his work. Like his depictions of the British where he says Welsh resemble Spanish, English resemble Belgians, Scottish resemble Scandinavians and FINALLY this has been proven genetically ture by DNA studies of the founder effect of the original colonizers after the Ice Age- one group settling from Spain on the western coastal parts, and one group settling from Belgium into the eastern coastal parts and finally Scandinavians settling in Scotland and northern parts of the Isles (even discounting recent Viking colonization). Tacitus was amazingly correct. I get the same feeling reading his account of Germania.)

MCP3
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011, 07:21 PM
As for what Tacitus said read the book "Germania". Here are a few of my favorite quotes!
Paragraph 20 "The young men marry late and their vigour is thus unimpaired. Nor are the maidens hurried into marriage; the same age and a similar stature is required; well-matched and vigorous they wed, and the offspring reporduce the strength of the parents."

Paragraph 19 "Very rare for so numerous a population is adultery, the punishment for which is prompt"

Paragraph 18 "This they count their most sacred bond of union (marriage)"

Paragraph 18 "Their marraige code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy. Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife"

Paragraph 19"They recieve one husband, as having one body and one life, that they may have no thoughts beyond, no further reaching desires.... to limit the number of their children or to destroy any of their subsequent offspring is accounted infamous, and good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere."

I think he also wrote about England and I haven't read it yet but I believe he says they marry young,
Stop here. There was no such thing as England when Tacitus wrote the book, both Angles and Saxons were just German tribes who inhabited the North Sea coast---on the German side. Around 600 ad they got the idea to emigrate from the Germany to the British Isles, partly because the Romans were leaving and the Romano-Britons were too weak to keep the Roman rule
over England in place. They were easy prey for the invading Anglo-Saxons who then established the Saxon Kingdom in England. So what appears true for the Germans at the time of Tacitus ("late marriage compared to the Romans, Greek etc") is also true for the Anglo-Saxons, because they were genuine Germans that lived in Germany at the time.


and adultery is looked at as common- which is the complete opposite of Germany. (though this very well could be due to roman luxury lifestyle influence- but regardless of what caused it- there was a difference existing at the year 100 between Germany and England)
False perception. See above. At the time of Tacitus the British Isles were not Germanic at all, they were entirely Celtic and Roman (speak: "Italian") inhabited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of Tacitius, here is another accurate observation:

Tradition. says that armies already wavering and giving way have been rallied by women who, with earnest entreaties and bosoms laid bare, have vividly represented the horrors of captivity, which the Germans fear with such extreme dread on behalf of their women, that the strongest tie by which a state can be bound is the being required to give, among the number of hostages, maidens of noble birth. They even believe that the sex has a certain sanctity and prescience, and they do not despise their counsels, or make light of their answers. In Vespasian's days we saw Veleda, long regarded by many as a divinity. In former times, too, they venerated Aurinia, and many other women, but not with servile flatteries, or with sham deification.
It is un-Germanic to put women down, that's the point.

The complete work "Tacitus: Germania"
http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusgermania.php

Juthunge
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011, 07:23 PM
He also talks about the bad of German society (being lazy and drinking he says) so clearly his main concern was not to contrast the high morals of Germania to the bad degeneratness of the Roman Empire (otherwise his sections on the bad parts of German society would have been left out). Since he gives both sides of the story, I feel, that the book is overwhelminly a comprehensive (covering many aspects of German society, and tribal differences), unbaised (telling both the good and bad) account of German society. His book is intended to be an educational book covering society, religion, tribes, customs etc.

In a handful of sentances he finds it striking how German morals contrasted with Roman morals- and he points that out. But I don't see how those 3-4 sentances would change the entire topic of his book from educational into boasting about a different foregin ethnic group at his own ethnic groups expense.

After world war two people began calling this book "the most dangerous book ever written". Why do they think this? Because it says German society was highly moral, monogomous, brave and valued chastity. How is this dangerous to say?

Maybe Tacitus had an agenda trying to get people to quit having wars with Germania. But then why would he call Germans lazy and heavy drinkers and a bit barbaric? And if this is the case, why didn't he spend ANY time talking about inter German-Roman relations. That just doesn't make sense to me.

If you would like to point something out to me or tell me how it could be biased I'd love to hear it. I just don't see really any possible bias in 99% of the book.

(I'm still amazed at some of his work. Like his depictions of the British where he says Welsh resemble Spanish, English resemble Belgians, Scottish resemble Scandinavians and FINALLY this has been proven genetically ture by DNA studies of the founder effect of the original colonizers after the Ice Age- one group settling from Spain on the western coastal parts, and one group settling from Belgium into the eastern coastal parts and finally Scandinavians settling in Scotland and northern parts of the Isles (even discounting recent Viking colonization). Tacitus was amazingly correct. I get the same feeling reading his account of Germania.)

To understand that reading the Germania alone is not sufficient, you have to take into account other works of Tacitus, his world view, other ethnographies and the general circumstances. I'm studying History and wrote a seminar paper about Tacitus and that's what I concluded from it. In any case Tacitus is nevertheless one of the most precious sources on Germanic life.

I wasn't intending to imply that he's giving wrong information or that his entire work is written purely for the purpose to hold up a mirror to Roman society but simply that we don't need to accept everything by him unquestioningly out of the reasons I stated before. I've got to admit "main concern" was probably worded wrongly in that context.

On another note: The English couldn't couldn't resemble Belgians though, since at that time there were no English people in Britain, rather the Celtic tribes living in what is now England resembled the Belgae (probably a combination of Celtic and Germanic elements). They even called themselves Belgae.

Wynterwade
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011, 05:45 PM
Stop here. There was no such thing as England when Tacitus wrote the book,
You're right, my mistake. I'm always getting those terms mixed up. Native Britons- that's what I mean.


To understand that reading the Germania alone is not sufficient, you have to take into account other works of Tacitus, his world view, other ethnographies and the general circumstances.
You're right. I haven't read in full his other works yet. I don't know his world view. I don't know of any other ethnographers during the period.

The main point in my opinion, are the values he talks about that exist in Germania. I find these values- Germans marry late, value monogamy, etc.- very reasonable and I don't understand why they would be questionable. He's not saying that polygamy didn't exist (he says the leaders are polygamous) he's not saying that everyone is highly moral- he's merely saying that they value those traits. Are there any other accounts of the contrary?


The English couldn't couldn't resemble Belgians though, since at that time there were no English people in Britain, rather the Celtic tribes living in what is now England resembled the Belgae

Concerning resemblance, based on Genetic studies, the Vikings (Angles Saxons and Jutes) contributed only 5% to the modern day genetics of modern day England. So I think it is fair to conclude that the ancient Britons of the English area resembled modern day English closely. So when Tacitus says the ancient Britons resemble the ancient Belgians- this certainly holds true for today as well. (as can be shown with DNA studies on ancient population migrations). (there are actually larger more distant connections between the British Isles and the Dutch, and Scandinavians- look at my picture for one example)

(sorry if you already know this I just find it amazingly interesting). Most of the difference in looks within the British Isles was caused after the Last Glacial Maximum of the Ice Age. Two expansions, the first being Spanish coming up along coast into Wales, Ireland and southern England. And the second coming from the Belgian area into modern day England. (Also from Oppenheimer).

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImage.jpg
^ Notice there is no water between Briton, Ireland and mainland Europe.

As for the English Language-
There is also the possibility that an ancient form of the English language existed in England long before the roman conquest of Britain. The reason being, the English we speak seems to have derived from a Germanic language that doesn't have as much in common as would be expected with the Saxon, Angle or Jute Germanic languages (talked about in the book "Origin of the British" by Oppenheimer). Secondly, because most place names especially in Eastern England, as opposed to the rest of the British Isles, are largely not as Celtic (Oppenheimer). And thirdly, there is a group Oppenheimer talks about in his book that lived in present day England before the Roman expansion that could have spoken a Germanic- English like- language. For evidence he used place names and the account of Tacitus for this group.

Sorry for so much information. I guess I went a little overboard.

Juthunge
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011, 06:21 PM
The main point in my opinion, are the values he talks about that exist in Germania. I find these values- Germans marry late, value monogamy, etc.- very reasonable and I don't understand why they would be questionable. He's not saying that polygamy didn't exist (he says the leaders are polygamous) he's not saying that everyone is highly moral- he's merely saying that they value those traits. Are there any other accounts of the contrary?


As I said, I wasn't specifically talking about those lines of Tacitus nor did I intend to refute what you were saying. I simply meant we don't need to accept everything he wrote unquestioningly, although judging from what we now about later Germanic societies he was probably right in this case.




Concerning resemblance, based on Genetic studies, the Vikings (Angles Saxons and Jutes) contributed only 5% to the modern day genetics of modern day England. So I think it is fair to conclude that the ancient Britons of the English area resembled modern day English closely. So when Tacitus says the ancient Britons resemble the ancient Belgians- this certainly holds true for today as well. (as can be shown with DNA studies on ancient population migrations). (there are actually larger more distant connections between the British Isles and the Dutch, and Scandinavians- look at my picture for one example)

(sorry if you already know this I just find it amazingly interesting). Most of the difference in looks within the British Isles was caused after the Last Glacial Maximum of the Ice Age. Two expansions, the first being Spanish coming up along coast into Wales, Ireland and southern England. And the second coming from the Belgian area into modern day England. (Also from Oppenheimer).

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImage.jpg
^ Notice there is no water between Briton, Ireland and mainland Europe.

As for the English Language-
There is also the possibility that an ancient form of the English language existed in England long before the roman conquest of Britain. The reason being, the English we speak seems to have derived from a Germanic language that doesn't have as much in common as would be expected with the Saxon, Angle or Jute Germanic languages (talked about in the book "Origin of the British" by Oppenheimer). Secondly, because most place names especially in Eastern England, as opposed to the rest of the British Isles, are largely not as Celtic (Oppenheimer). And thirdly, there is a group Oppenheimer talks about in his book that lived in present day England before the Roman expansion that could have spoken a Germanic- English like- language. For evidence he used place names and the account of Tacitus for this group.

I've heard of those studies but I've also heard of different ones stating the opposite. I'm not entirely convinced of either and my personal view is this, as stated in the "Anglo-Saxon Wipeout" Thread:



Firstly warrior parties arrived, called by the British (Hengest and Horsa, anyone? I think that part of the myth is quite correct.), took native women because they lacked their own, but after some time they wanted more of the land and called in their kinsmen which probably mostly arrived as families already. Nevertheless quite a few of them might have taken native women too.
The rest of the Celts, around 60% in my opinion, got in larger parts pushed back over time to Wales, Cornwall and partly Scotland or died. Many might have just become subjects of their new masters though.

So basically there was a major Anglo-Saxon contribution to the English gene pool although with 30-40% of native British contributions.


Even if the theory held true that the vast majority of the ancestors of the modern Englishmen arrived between 13.500 and 5.500 BC I sincerely doubt there were no population changings either on the Islands or on the continent which would've changed the appearence or character of those respective populations.

This is going a bit off topic by the way.

Wynterwade
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011, 06:54 PM
I've heard of those studies but I've also heard of different ones stating the opposite. I'm not entirely convinced of either and my personal view is this, as stated in the "Anglo-Saxon Wipeout" Thread:

Quote:
Firstly warrior parties arrived, called by the British (Hengest and Horsa, anyone? I think that part of the myth is quite correct.), took native women because they lacked their own, but after some time they wanted more of the land and called in their kinsmen which probably mostly arrived as families already. Nevertheless quite a few of them might have taken native women too.
The rest of the Celts, around 60% in my opinion, got in larger parts pushed back over time to Wales, Cornwall and partly Scotland or died. Many might have just become subjects of their new masters though.
So basically there was a major Anglo-Saxon contribution to the English gene pool although with 30-40% of native British contributions.


Even if the theory held true that the vast majority of the ancestors of the modern Englishmen arrived between 13.500 and 5.500 BC I sincerely doubt there were no population changings either on the Islands or on the continent which would've changed the appearence or character of those respective populations.

Great discussion. Here are two theories...

1) Wipeout theory- based ONLY upon Bede, and Geoffry of Monmouth (He was from Wales writing about Vikings taking over Britain, and Hengist and Horsa are in his book. You also have to take note that during his time there was a war going on between the Normans and the Vikings over control of his land- Geoffry sided with the Normans. Not only that but he also writes in the SAME book about Red and White dragons that hide underneath castles and attack the King, magic spells and Merlin the magic prophet that can tell the future.) I find his word hard to believe.

2) Anglo-Saxon ruling elite with little effect on genetics (about 5%) proved by genetics.

In genetics it is possible to analyze when different population migrations occurred. The mt-DNA and pt-DNA alters after a certain number of years resulting in longer and longer and longer DNA markers such as... R1a1-3c. They've discovered different levels of population migrations this way. They've discovered the amount from the Ice Age, the amount from the Neolithic, the amount from the Bronze and Iron ages and where they came from. They've also analyzed Scandinavian DNA. All of which are able to give us a clear picture of when the British Isles were colonized, who did the colonizing and how much influence did they have.

http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImagedf.jpg
http://forums.skadi.net/photoplog/images/36788/1_ScannedImage-2.jpg
^ You should get the book "The Origins of the British" by Oppenheimer.

This entire section I pulled those charts from is dedicated to the Anglo-Saxon wipe-out theory.

There are sections dedicated to each of the major population migrations in many different eras; LGM, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze, Iron and Viking- and each tells the appropriate genetic influences in the Isles of each.