I just read a review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Edward Miller from the University of New Orleans that was controversial to say the least, but it was provocative and stimulating, so I'll summarize it.

He used his theory to explain their findings. According to him, high IQs evolve in cold climates because in those climates, unlike tropical ones, women cannot raise children alone and need male provisioning. In tropical climates where men are not so needed to secure food for women and children, women will choose men based on attraction criteria: attractiveness, health, and charm. In the cold climates, women need a man who will provide reliable food to her and her children, so she will choose skilled men. The smarter she is, the better she will pay attention to these characterstics and will select them. From the man's side of it, his orientation is to be there to provide for a women and her children (his genetic legacy), so he wants to ensure that he ends up provisioning his own children, and not some other man's, and a smart man will be better aware of these issues and will wisely choose a women who is most likely to be faithful to him, or will use his smarts to keep her faithful.

The bottom line is that the circumstances in cold climates during human pre-history selected for intelligent people more so than the tropics, so that is why we see that nations in cold and temperate zones have the highest average IQs and consequently become the richest.

The second aspect of his theory supposedly explains why Australian and
American aborigines did not develop high IQs even though they have been in temperate or cold climates for a very long time. He argues that in addition to climate another IQ factor is geographic centrality. High IQ gene mutations were most likely in old, large central populations like Asia, and over time they radiated out as people moved around and mixed with others. Populations on the furthest peripheries never got some of these genes and so lagged behind other regions.

He also presents Lynn's much simpler view (published prior to the writing of the book) that cold climates weed out less capable people while tropical climates do not as much.

He does a serious job of trying to rebut challenges to this, and I can't cover all this here, but take it for whatever it is worth. Frankly, I am skeptical; for example, his theory would predict high IQs in the Middle East and South Asia since those places have always been population centers, but those countries are not. Now admittedly South Asia is tropical, but the Middle East seems like the kind of harsh climate that would make women dependent on male provisioning.

Of course this perspective focuses on evolutionary processes and genes which would not explain the historically recent changes in IQs nor the recent changes in national wealth and achievement, but people of this view see IQ as potential which can only be utilized if social conditions are right, and which set the ceiling for how high social conditions can lift a country.

Originally Posted by galton

I just read a review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Edward Miller from the University of New Orleans that was controversial to say the least, but it was provocative and stimulating, so I'll summarize it.

He used his theory to explain their findings. According to him, high IQs evolve in cold climates because in those climates, unlike tropical ones, women cannot raise children alone and need male provisioning. In tropical climates where men are not so needed to secure food for women and children, women will choose men based on attraction criteria: attractiveness, health, and charm. In the cold climates, women need a man who will provide reliable food to her and her children, so she will choose skilled men. The smarter she is, the better she will pay attention to these characterstics and will select them.

To be honest, I think this sounds a bit far-fetched. I mean, when it comes to food, I think that, while southern climates provide a better food supply, it also allows for a larger population. A larger population would consume more food and the amount food availiable for each individual would soon be just as small as the food availiable in a harsher, but less popoulated area. Perhaps one could argue that certain traits are more advantagous in competion for food between individuals, and other traits are more advantagous in "competition for food between man and nature". But I`m not so sure that it would hold water.

I think it would be more fruitful to look at the traits needed for constructing shelter and/or storage food rather than searching for food as this would be a very important issue in colder climates, and almost a non.issue in warmer.

Originally Posted by galton

From the man's side of it, his orientation is to be there to provide for a women and her children (his genetic legacy), so he wants to ensure that he ends up provisioning his own children, and not some other man's, and a smart man will be better aware of these issues and will wisely choose a women who is most likely to be faithful to him, or will use his smarts to keep her faithful.

I once read about a study in Sweden that small children are more likely to resemble their fathers as this would prove that the child was his and therefor he would provide for it. I`m not so sure about the authencity, but it would support the claim that certain traits where developed to convince men of their fatherhood.

Originally Posted by galton

He does a serious job of trying to rebut challenges to this, and I can't cover all this here, but take it for whatever it is worth. Frankly, I am skeptical; for example, his theory would predict high IQs in the Middle East and South Asia since those places have always been population centers, but those countries are not. Now admittedly South Asia is tropical, but the Middle East seems like the kind of harsh climate that would make women dependent on male provisioning.

I doubt that inteligence would be such an important factor in really cold climates. Physical strength and endurance would IMO be more important the harsher the climate. I know that I wouldn`t survive for a week in Swedish winter living primitive as I don`t have the physical strength and endurance for it, regardless of my intellect.


Edit
Oh, and regarding economic growth in Africa

I did some research on the subject and aparantly the real growth in some African countries is quite impressive. In 2002 there was some impressive economic growth in countries like Equatorial Guinea (20%) Rwanda (9,7%), Angola (9,4%), Mozambique (7,7%), Chad (7,4%) Sierra Leone (6,6%), Tanzania (6,1%), Benin (6%), Gambia (5,7%) Uganda (5,5%) and Sudan (5,1%). African average growth was 3,16%, this compared with the economic growth of the US in 2002 2,4%, the european (excluding Russia and Iceland) average of 1.77% and world average of 2,7% suggests that Africa has far from reached its economic potential...


Sources: CIA world factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...elds/2003.html) and nationmaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...ea_gro_rat/AFR)

Originally Posted by Eddie

To be honest, I think this sounds a bit far-fetched. I mean, when it comes to food, I think that, while southern climates provide a better food supply, it also allows for a larger population. A larger population would consume more food and the amount food availiable for each individual would soon be just as small as the food availiable in a harsher, but less popoulated area. Perhaps one could argue that certain traits are more advantagous in competion for food between individuals, and other traits are more advantagous in "competition for food between man and nature". But I`m not so sure that it would hold water.

I think it would be more fruitful to look at the traits needed for constructing shelter and/or storage food rather than searching for food as this would be a very important issue in colder climates, and almost a non.issue in warmer.

Good points. I think Miller wasn't arguing so much about food abundance but about how food is procured by women. In tropical areas, food grows abundantly so women can gather all they need without the assistance of men. In cold climates, plant food is more scarce, especially during the cold months, so people relied more on meat food, and pregnancy and little children makes it difficult for women to go on hunting trips.

Your point about food abundance raises another question though. If warm climates were able to support so many people, and competition was still strong, as you say, it seems to me that these areas should have been the hotbeds of economic and technological development. Now while people didn;t agree with me that this was concentrated in Europe, still everyone seemed to agree (I think) that development took off most in more temperate climates. In light of your point about food abundance, population and competition, this puzzles me.

Originally Posted by Eddie

I once read about a study in Sweden that small children are more likely to resemble their fathers as this would prove that the child was his and therefor he would provide for it. I`m not so sure about the authencity, but it would support the claim that certain traits where developed to convince men of their fatherhood.

Very interesting, never read that.

Originally Posted by Eddie

I doubt that inteligence would be such an important factor in really cold climates. Physical strength and endurance would IMO be more important the harsher the climate. I know that I wouldn`t survive for a week in Swedish winter living primitive as I don`t have the physical strength and endurance for it, regardless of my intellect.


Edit
Oh, and regarding economic growth in Africa

I did some research on the subject and aparantly the real growth in some African countries is quite impressive. In 2002 there was some impressive economic growth in countries like Equatorial Guinea (20%) Rwanda (9,7%), Angola (9,4%), Mozambique (7,7%), Chad (7,4%) Sierra Leone (6,6%), Tanzania (6,1%), Benin (6%), Gambia (5,7%) Uganda (5,5%) and Sudan (5,1%). African average growth was 3,16%, this compared with the economic growth of the US in 2002 2,4%, the european (excluding Russia and Iceland) average of 1.77% and world average of 2,7% suggests that Africa has far from reached its economic potential...

Good point about strength and endurance. This reminds of the related pattern that people historically from tropical climates tend to be more comfortable in warmer climates, and just the reverse for people whose ancestors were from colder climates. It might be no accident that Europeans settled temperate climates like the U.S. and Canada and South Africa and Argentina. Well and they didn't do well in tropical climates--diseases wiped them out. I do know that indigenous people of really cold climates can do things unimaginable to other people, like swimming in ice cold water or sleeping uncovered in very cold weather.

I'm not sure that people historically from cold climates have any greater endurance or strength though. They do tend to live longer, but that may be due to better health and living conditions. I have read that Chinese laborers have survivied the most gruelling working conditions and keep going strong, but this appeared to be impressionistic so who knows.

Your data on Africa is fascinating. I was relying on impressionistic stuff I have read indicating that Africa as a whole was having serious economic problems. The writings were probably overly influenced by what is going on in places like Zimbabwe. I think the southern part of Africa is struggling more, for one thing because of the AIDS epidemic. I read the other day that something like 40% of Zambians were HIV positive. I thought it must be incorrect. When I read devastating things like that, your news is especially encouraging.