Is their any proof or correlation that would justify the "cold winters theory" of the evolution of human intelligence?

[Kelley1]

According to this theory, cold environments produce a selective pressure for higher intelligence because they present cognitive demands not found in warmer environments, such as the need to find ways of keeping warm, and the stockpiling of food for winter. James Flynn has criticized this theory as being inconsistent with the global distribution of IQ scores. If the theory were correct, the people of Singapore, who originated primarily from China's southern Guangdong province, would possess a lower average IQ than the people of mainland China, when in fact the reverse is true. In 2012 Scott A. McGreal, writing for Psychology Today, described it as a just-so story, saying the theory fails to account for challenges specific to warmer environments, and also does not explain why hominids who evolved for millions of years in colder environments (such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus) did not also evolve similar intelligence.

[Dargil]

It's an hypothesis which is supported by paleontological, although disputed, "evidence".
It will never be "proven" factually because it cannot be repeated.

Evolution and The Big Bang are also unproven hypotheses. As are "creationism" and "intelligent design".

[jahaims]

I don't think it was just one thing. Eating less plants and higher fat/protein diets in colder climates could contribute to this as well.

[msc545]

The theory that cold environments exert selective pressures favoring higher intelligence, by necessitating complex survival strategies such as food storage and insulation against the cold, is an overly reductionist explanation of human cognitive evolution. While environmental challenges undoubtedly shape aspects of behavior and adaptation, the assertion that cold climates inherently lead to greater intelligence lacks consistent empirical support and fails to account for the multifactorial nature of human intelligence.

The theory does not adequately consider the equally complex cognitive demands present in warmer environments. Populations in tropical and subtropical regions have historically faced significant ecological and survival challenges, including the management of infectious diseases, high biodiversity requiring detailed ecological knowledge, and the development of agricultural systems in the face of seasonal rainfall and variable soil fertility. These conditions necessitate problem-solving, long-term planning, and social coordination, all of which are cognitive tasks comparable to those faced in colder climates.

Moreover, empirical evidence undermines the central claim of the theory. As noted by James Flynn, if colder climates did in fact foster higher intelligence, then populations from tropical regions, such as those from southern China and Southeast Asia, should display lower average intelligence scores than populations from northern, colder areas. However, international IQ data contradicts this expectation. For instance, Singapore—whose population is largely descended from southern Chinese immigrants—consistently ranks among the highest in global IQ comparisons, exceeding many colder-climate countries. This discrepancy suggests that environmental temperature alone is insufficient to explain observed differences in cognitive performance.

The cold-climate hypothesis also fails to account for evolutionary outcomes among other hominid species. Neanderthals and Homo erectus, both of whom inhabited cold environments for extended evolutionary periods, did not develop the same levels of cognitive complexity seen in Homo sapiens. This indicates that factors beyond climatic conditions—such as social structures, cultural transmission, and ecological flexibility—played a more significant role in the development of advanced cognitive abilities.

Furthermore, intelligence is a dynamic trait influenced by a wide array of environmental, genetic, cultural, and socioeconomic factors. Education, access to resources, linguistic complexity, and technological innovation all contribute to the cognitive landscape of a population. To attribute intelligence predominantly to environmental temperature is to disregard this complexity and reduce a nuanced trait to a single variable.

While environmental challenges may shape aspects of human behavior, the theory that cold climates inherently promote higher intelligence is not supported by empirical data and fails to account for the diverse pathways through which intelligence can evolve and manifest. A more comprehensive approach must consider the interplay of ecological, cultural, and social factors in shaping human cognition.

[exitseven]

@msc545 I have to say that this is a very well thought out reply.

[msc545]

Thank you

[MuddyMole]

I can see the logic behind it. No idea if it's true or not. The problem is that for scientists to research anything, they need funding, and noone wants to be associated with this kind of research (let alone fund it), as it will inevitably lead to questions about the possible link between race and intelligence, which is very much a taboo subject (imagine the public outcry if you were to publish a paper in this day and age, that showed black people are less intelligent than white people).

[Kelley1]

That is true. However, even though they will not touch the subject with a ten-foot pole, does anyone not already know what is forbidden to say? "The Bell Curve" received a huge amount of criticism while offering zero real evidence disputing the facts presented in the book.

[exitseven]

I do not know if the "cold winters theory" can really effect IQ scores but I have always wondered why tropical countries are usually backwards slums with poverty and primitive infrastructure. They usually have little or no industry and their economies are generally bases on tourism.

[Kelley1]

The "cold winters theory" is based on tens of thousands of years, during the Ice Age. Examples comparing IQ differences during the last 12,000 years and after the Ice Age are not valid because such evolutionary changes take much longer. Food is plentiful near the equator. Therefore, after adapting to the environment, chimps, gorillas, baboons, and low-IQ pygmies do well. Few if any would survive in an Ice Age environment, even with enough fur, because there would be too little food, and they couldn't run fast enough to catch prey animals, let alone take them down. Some pygmies might develop the necessary tools for hunting.

[SixFootSexy]

Macro Evolution is a completely unscientific theory.

Nobody has EVER made a cell in a lab. Or even taken apart a cell and put it back together again. Nobody knows how to do that and they try every year with billions of dollars. The code for even a single cell is massive and not simple to assemble in the slightest.

• 1. Life comes from non-life.
• 2. Complex plant, animal and human life came from single-celled organisms.
• 3. Time and chance drives evolution. (time and chance make it impossible)
• 4. Minor changes and variation within species (such as color, size and shape changes) are touted as proof for macro evolutionary processes.

None of these have ever been observed.

[abc3643]

That's horseshit.
Your scientific and, in particular, mathematical prowess is lacking.

[SixFootSexy]

@abc3643 K. You really know how to build a compelling argument.

[abc3643]

I don't have time to give you the education you need. I am sorry.
However, just because something isn't observed doesn't mean it isn't true. This is what logical inference is all about.

I quote Spock from the Star Trek episode "Court Martial":
"Lieutenant, I am half-Vulcanian. Vulcanians do not speculate. I speak from pure logic. If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DQzJNKJ6Ko

[SixFootSexy]

@abc3643 Life does not come from non-life. Scientifically a fact, never been observed, never been replicated in a lab. Just wishful thinking, even if you have all the components.

It's more statistically probable for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble a fully functional Boeing 747 than it is for a fully functional cell being formed in primordial soup, and to further that thought, a plane is a mechanical, non-biological entity. Logically, scientifically, it doesn't make sense.

It's a silly, outdated theory from 1850's before the discovery of DNA or the electron microscope. But nice try, invoking a proven theory of gravity to answer the questions of origin.

[abc3643]

THIS:
" Life does not come from non-life..."
I won't say that's true or false. You certainly don't have proof either way.
"Scientifically a fact, ..."
No, it's not.
"(Life from non-life has) never been observed,"
I agree.

Even defining life is something of debate.
Consider reading the wonderful book "13 Things that Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time" (*)

en.wikipedia.org/.../13_Things_That_Don%27t_Make_Sense

(*) It's down to 12. One of those things was "The Pioneer Anomaly" but this was explained in 2012, a few years after the book was released in 2008.

[abc3643]

Evolution is not a silly idea because evolution just doesn't occur in biological systems. It happens in all physical systems which involve some form of system reproduction and system physical memory. Why? Because physical memory is always corruptible by environmental effects.

For instance, speaking of a 747, right now, I am an avionics systems engineer. When it comes to software and electronics on board an aircraft, two things we usually have to deal with: "EMI" or "Electromagnetic Interference" and "Register Refresh".
Basically, we have to test the systems crtical to flight that they are robust from radiation such as cosmic rays from space. High-energy photons, like those in gamma rays, can alter bit values in the memory in computer systems. If that memory because excessively screwed-up, people will die. So, one of the ways we combat that is with a register refresh; we have protected copies of critical values used by the aircraft software. Periodically (like dozens or hundreds of times per second), we rewrite the values from the shielded memory onto the memory actively being used by flying aircraft. Basically, we are "refreshing" the memory registers.

So, in a nutshell, register refresh is an evolution-combating process that we use to prevent the memory on board the aircraft from evolving away from its designed and required states.

[SixFootSexy]

@abc3643 Perfect, you sound like a smart guy. So I'll ask you this, has a piece of code ever, in the history of aviation, improved by your definition of evolution either by EMI or other accidental means? Or is it invariably degraded from the source code?

Sounds like you're making an awfully strong argument against naturally-occurring chaos to encode something far more complex than aviation memory; DNA.

Remember, no one here is arguing against micro-evolution or variation within a species.

[Kelley1]

It is impossible for the universe to have always existed because, if it did, entropy would be at a maximum, and life would be impossible. It is also impossible that the universe could have come from nothing. It is not possible to know how or why; we only know it is. We don't know how life started on Earth. We only know it is. Until we have the ability to discover life in our galaxy or other planets, we don't know if the universe is teeming with life or if it only exists on Earth. We only know life exists on Earth and that evolution appears to be a fact.

Of course, after 4 billion years of evolution, cells would be complex and complicated. My guess is that the first cell was amino acids that somehow got enclosed. Since it was in an ocean full of amino acids, it absorbed more amino acids, grew larger, and split into. That was not life, but after a million years and trillions of splittings, they evolved into simple cells that became life. I submit that as a possible explanation.

[abc3643]

Yes, things do evolve for the better. It happens all the time.
Here's another way of putting it:
Evolution is another word for change.
Keep that in mind.
So, every advancement that has happened to our species has occurred because of a collection of changes. Some of those changes are due to conditions being forced on us (e. g., "Necessity is the Mother of Invention"). Some of those changes are purely intellectual; someone had an insight and that led to a development. The changes then built upon each other over time.

Here's an example...
Einstein used something called a "gedanken experiment" or "though experiment" to reason out the theory of special relativity. The link below is to my asking Google Gemini "What is a gedanken experiment?"
https://g.co/gemini/share/318f668ae33b
In essence, it's a "what if" question.
But, once answered, that leads to additional "what if" questions.
(Indeed, this is basically the Socratic Method of teaching.)
In Einstein's case, this would lead to the general theory of relativity.
Einstein himself said any single experiment could prove it all wrong.
So far that has not happened and general relativity's first example of it likely being true was that it explained a previously unexplained phenomenon: the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

(more)

[abc3643]

OK, so what?

Well, general relativity is now part of our body of knowledge. Our body of knowledge has evolved. And, furthermore, general relativity is now a tool for us to use. Indeed, we DO use it. When designing the GPS system, the atomic clocks on board the satellites had to be designed with the effects of general relativity in mind otherwise the GPS system would fail.

But, we now have a successful GPS system... Einstein coming up with relativity eventually led to it.

But relativity came about due to the human mind... that's evolution due to inspiration.

Another example of evolution is civilization itself. That came about because we, as a hunter-gatherer species, were forced to adapt due to changes in climate in Africa. (The humans who didn't adapt died off... the fittest - those who adapted - survived.)

But this response is running very long.

Consider watching "Connections: An Alternative View of Change by James Burke", a landmark 8-part BBC/PBS series from 1978. Episode 1, "The Trigger Effect" is somewhat astonishing and host James Burke ultimately explains that civilization begins with the invention of the plow because humans needed predictable food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XetplHcM7aQ

[jshm2]

LOL, no. It's just white supremacy sanitised.

The reality is that "cold countries" have often raped, pillaged and exploited" "hot countries" to build their own. Then claim all the credit for "development" as no one can check where they got their ideas and stuff.

Also, there is no basis to "IQ" - it's a meaningless figure that Whites project, to try and justify themselves as being some sort of arbitrary standard.

It takes far more brains to live as a farmer or hunter, than as an office drone or salesman.

[purplepoppy]

Civilisation did not start in the artic circle. When we think of ancient Civilisations we think of the middle east and the Mediterranean where the climate allowed people to flourish all year rather than just a few short months.

[Kelley1]

Those ancient civilizations are yesterday in evolutionary terms. 12,000 years ago, before those civilizations, humans in the North were living in an Ice Age that had lasted for 90,000 years.

[DrPepper12]

It's bullshit discredited theory. File it next to the "aquatic apes" theory 🙄