Considering I've never heard the theory, the latter. Enlighten me in 100 words or less.

It seems there would be quite a bit of give and take between what makes a civilization stronger and what may make the individual human beings within the civilization stronger. Ultimately, the two need to develop without too much expense to the other.

That is an interesting theory. I suspect that if we judge from history, the two are incompatible. The imperative to respect individual human beings within the broader civilization is a moral assertion, not a data driven recommendation that is based in experience.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Do you mean people with more money or less money are likely to be moral? Or do you mean that people with more money are more likely to follow the rules because the consequences of being caught are bigger ie they have more money to lose. I agree that having strong institutions is more likely to have people follow the rules but is following the rules equal to being moral if the motivation is being worried about being caught. In my mind being moral is doing the right thing just because it is the right thing to do.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Whether or not the Greeks, Romans Aztecs Egyptians had great civilizations depends somewhat on your point of view. If you were a slave or very low level worker I suppose you may not think so. Although the benefits of stability that an authoritarian regime provides can be helpful. In the Roman empire you could depend on roads and a certain amount of order. You can build alot of great things when you have a huge pool of slave labour. I'm not saying the warm weather theory is anywhere near the whole explanation just a small observation. Great civilizations have private property rights. If you give people private property than they have motivation to improve their lot. But then you have to explain why some places have private property rights and others do not. At some point you have to figure out why those in power are willing to maintain strong institutions and allow everyone to have freedoms. I think in America you guys wrote into the constitution something about all people having certain inalienable rights granted by their creator. Something has to stand in the way of the divine right of kings. Sometimes it is religion. I think the framers were smart enough to recognize that religion has a better role in being opposed and critical of power vs being the source of it. Education is helpful in that if produces enlightened self interest ie the powerful recognizing that stable societies are in their best interest.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Likewise, if you're living in poverty in the US or some other 21st century power, you might not really feel like you're living in a "great civilization."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Whether or not the Greeks, Romans Aztecs Egyptians had great civilizations depends somewhat on your point of view. If you were a slave or very low level worker I suppose you may not think so.

"Great" does not necessarily equate to "good." The greatness of civilization is usually viewed in terms of that civilization's achievements, scope, longevity, lasting influence, and so on. There's little argument that the Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, and Egyptians were great civilizations. Particularly in context of the warm weather theory under discussion, which as I understand it posits that cold weather civilizations are more advanced because they have to learn how to plan ahead to survive. That has nothing at all to do with individual liberty, and is pretty well wrecked as a theory by all those warm weather civilizations I mentioned.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The poor here on average are better off than what 90% of the people to ever live? 95%? 99%?

And? He said that whether or not a civilization is "great" depends somewhat on point of view, and specifically pointed to those who lived in lower economic conditions. That concept applies equally to the US or other developed countries today as it did to the Romans or Greeks.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, if you use the actual dictionary definition of great then both you and len are wrong. If great means "I think it's wonderful!" then, yeah, anyone can have their opinion.

The idea is that living in cold weather climates requires more planning, more cunning, and more work in order to stay alive. Humans that lived for a long time in these climates would have more natural selection pressure for intelligence than those living in the tropics where life is easier. This isn't true so much in modern times because the wide spread availability of technology makes living in the cold relatively less deadly than the past. The theory is that there's a strong correlation between these two factors, not that one must lead to the other.

The theory is that there's a strong correlation between these two factors

Evidence?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It's pretty straight forward -- colder weather civilizations and nations contain higher intelligence (as per reported IQ scores) compared to warmer climate civilizations and nations -- up to some degree of cold weather.

There may be more, but we live in a post-1984 world and the original evidence for politically incorrect theories is not easily found on the internet. I know because I just tried. Give it a shot yourself.

I was just responding to len's assertion. Take it or leave it, I really could not care less.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It's pretty straight forward -- colder weather civilizations and nations contain higher intelligence (as per reported IQ scores) compared to warmer climate civilizations and nations -- up to some degree of cold weather.

Even if such evidence existed (which it apparently doesn't, having been scrubbed off the Interwebs by Big Brother), would it really prove the theory? Or would it just be a reflection of the current state of the globe? Much of the third world is, at this particular point in history, located in warm climates. Much of the developed world is located in cooler climates. It wasn't always the case, though. Who would have scored higher on an IQ test in Christ's time- a Roman citizen, or someone in Norway 800 years before the Viking era?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

1.) It's not that the evidence doesn't exist. It's that the actual data is tough to find.
2.) This just reflects the current state of the globe? Perhaps, but colder climate areas have been generally colder than warmer climate areas throughout human evolution.
3.) Roman citizen versus Norwegian a long time ago? No one knows. There's nothing there.
4.) Also, the idea is that there is a strong correlation between colder climates and intelligence; it's not that cold climate is an all-determining variable.
5.) Finally, I just mentioned this idea, and said that it had some limited merit. I'm not it's founder or champion. I'm just trying to help you understand something you seem to know little about. You're welcome to do your own leg work if mine isn't good enough.

Which is exactly what I alluded to; the theory is largely redundant in modern times because technology has made everything easier. People are no longer required to be so resourceful. Of course this natural selection would take some time to level out.

But then I'm from a warm climate so I'm pretty dumb and just don't get it. Having said that, if people from cold climates are so clever, why didn't they just think of moving somewhere warmer? I mean the rest of the animal kingdom figured out the concept of heading south for the winter! Pfft, morons!

1.) It's not that the evidence doesn't exist. It's that the actual data is tough to find.

If you say so.

2.) This just reflects the current state of the globe? Perhaps, but colder climate areas have been generally colder than warmer climate areas throughout human evolution.

I wasn't clear. This point was really the same as #3. What I'm saying is that even if those in warmer climates today score lower on IQ than those in colder climates, I think that's probably due to the fact the warmer climate areas of the world today are less advanced than the colder climate countries. It's a mistake to say that they aren't as advanced because they're less intelligent, though. I would expect people in less developed countries to score lower on IQ tests than people from more developed countries. But the thing is, "less developed" and "more developed" aren't static factors. There was a time when warmer climates represented the height of civilization, and colder climate regions were essentially in the stone age. (A lot of time, actually.) It could easily change again sometime in the future. In which case, you'd expect the relative IQ scores to switch again.

It's like saying that blacks in America score lower on IQ tests than whites, and Asians score higher than both. It might be true, but it doesn't really point to an inherent racial difference in intelligence. It points to the difference in socioeconomic status.


5.) Finally, I just mentioned this idea, and said that it had some limited merit. I'm not it's founder or champion. I'm just trying to help you understand something you seem to know little about.

I appreciate that. I don't find much merit in the idea.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So smart people aren't just smart. Instead the status of their civilization makes them smart? I don't think the Chinese people were smart, got stupid, and are now getting smarter just because their civilization waxed and waned over the centuries.


So asians score higher on IQ tests because of their socioeconomic status? The history of asian socioeconomic status in the USA works against that theory.

Yeah, the reason I thought your post was a joke was because there's no claim the theory has a lot of relevance for modern real-time human evolution. It's a theory of how intelligence developed during the evolutionary past.

So smart people aren't just smart. Instead the status of their civilization makes them smart? I don't think the Chinese people were smart, got stupid, and are now getting smarter just because their civilization waxed and waned over the centuries.

I think if you measured IQ at each of those points, the results would not be constant, even though their inherent intelligence didn't change. IQ tests don't measure genetic potential for intelligence. They measure an expression of intelligence, and that expression is heavily influenced by environmental factors. (Family, social structure, education, food, etc- I don't mean the weather.)

Consider the chart below and the implications:

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sorry, it's too hot down here to evolve! ;)

This is simply not true.

I give you the benefit of the doubt for lacking the basic science/social education to see this.

Please live AND learn!

 Think about it even kings 200 years ago didn't have refrigeration, central heating, air conditioning etc. Oh and toilets. Showers I love to take showers. We went an toured a castle in England. Drafty place for sure. Think of all the foods we get to eat. And people suffered with all sorts of ailments that are easy to treat now. A simple bladder infection I don't know how long it would take to get rid of that. Women were dying in childbirth all the time. We really are fortunate to live when we do.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot