>>9570197My thesis is that IQ is first and foremost related to historical events. I don't believe Egyptians created their civilization because they had an high IQ, I believe that they did because of a good environment and also a good quota of luck, and then, afterwards, civilization started to select IQ. When you're civilized you're successful because you're rich, or powerful, or capable at certain elevated skills: aka high IQ. While if you're just a paelolithic HG other traits will be preferred. Overall, civilization means specialization of skills and jobs, the smartest one was the most specialized, the most rich and successfull and the guy with more children, that could afford doctors or things like that, while if you were dumb you were just a peasant and had children that had higher probability of dying of desease or be killed by a criminal life ecc ecc. Ofc society can collapse thus bringing disgenic patterns. After the longbards invasion Italy was in ruin and all the smart people that could have become lawyers or retors or philosophers attending state schools they could no longer do that.
This could explain the fact modern day NW Europeans have the highest IQ despite the fact people living in similar cold climates have lower IQs and the fact their successful civilization is something that happened fairly recently.
