The Head Size/Race/IQ Trainwreck

Repost from the old site.

Average cranial capacities of indigenous populations, sex-combined means. Black: 1450 cc. and over; checkerboard: 1400-1449; crosshatching: 1350-1399; horizontal striping: 1300-1349; diagonal striping: 1250-1299; dots: 1200-1249. From Beals et al., 1984.

Click to enlarge.

White racists like to make a big deal about the supposed correlation between head size and intelligence and race. A nice little chart showing the basically dishonest portrayal they attempt based on cherry-picking data is below. I’ve already dealt with this before, but it’s time to add some new evidence to the theory.

As you can see, in the Americas, there is no good evidence whatsoever for head size and IQ. I am not aware that Amerindian IQ varies in the Americas. The average is apparently 87 across the continent. If anyone can show me that it varies by latitude, please do.

The biggest heads of all are in Northern Chinese (Manchurians), Eskimos, Alaskan natives, Siberians and Mongolians. The Northern Chinese IQ is 105, the Mongolian IQ is 100, the Eskimo IQ is 91, the Alaska native IQ is 87 and the Siberian native IQ is not known.

Note that Amerindians in Canada, Alaska, Mexico (!) and Tierra Del Fuego have larger heads (1400-1449 cc.) than any Europeans, yet Europeans have higher IQ’s than any of these Amerindians, who have IQ’s of 87. In addition, Uralics and Northeast Asians also have very large heads. Northeast Asians have median IQ’s of 105, Uralics have IQ’s of 96 and Amerindians have IQ’s of 87.

Amerindians in most of the US and in most of Latin America, Egyptians, Ugandans and Oceanians (Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians) have the same sized heads (1350-1399 cc.) as Northern and Central Europeans.

Northern and Central Europeans have median IQ’s of 98, Amerindians are at 87, Oceanians have median IQ’s of 84.5, and Ugandans have IQ’s of 73.

Some Amerindians, North Africans and Sahelians, Central Indians and Arabs, SE Asian Islanders (Indonesians, Bruneians, Malays and Filipinos), South Africans, New Guineans, and Middle Easterners have the same head sizes (1300-1349 cc.) as Southern Europeans.

Southern Europeans have a median IQ of 93. Amerindians again have IQ’s of 87. SE Asian Islanders have median IQ’s of 89.5, Arabs, North Africans and Middle Easterners have median IQ’s of 83.5. Central Indians and Central Asians have median IQ’s of 82. South Africans have median IQ’s of 70.5. Sahelians and West Africans have median IQ’s of 67.5.

It is true that most Africans have small heads, at 1250-1299 cc. However, southern Indians and some Amerindians have the same sized heads. These Africans have median IQ’s of 68.5, the Indians have IQ’s of 81.5 and the Amerindians have IQ’s of 87.

The smallest heads in the world (1200-1249 cc.) are actually not found in Africa. They are found in SE Asia and South India and Sri Lanka (we will also include the Seychelles and the Comoros). South Indians have a median IQ of 81 and SE Asians have median IQ’s of 90.

Does any of this make much sense? Not really.

Race realists, for the most part Northern European racists, often use a subset of these figures to demonstrate a link between IQ and head size. The subset looks something like this.

Misleading Racist Head Size/IQ Chart

Head Size
Asians       Europeans     Africans
Largest      Intermediate  Smallest
1400-1449cc. 1350-1399 cc. 1250-1299 cc.

Asians   Europeans    Africans
106      100          67

This is misleading. Let’s do it the right way.

Proper Head Size/IQ Chart

Largest heads 1450 cc.+
Variable        IQ

North Chinese*  105
Mongolians      99.5
Eskimos         91
Amerindians**   87
Siberians***    unknown

Median          95.5

Large heads 1400-1449 cc.
Variable       IQ

NE Asians*     105
Russians**     96
Amerindians**  87

Median         96

*incl. S. Chinese
**Canada, Alaska, Mexico, Fuegians
Medium-large heads 1350-1399 cc.
Variable             IQ

Nor./Cent. Europeans 98
Amerindians*         87
Oceanians**          84.5
Ugandans             73

Median               86

*Most Amerindians
**Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia
Medium-small heads 1300-1349 cc. 
Variable               IQ

S. Europeans           93
SE Asian Islanders*    89.5
Amerindians**          87
Middle Easterners***   83.5
Central Asians****     82
South Africans         70.5
Sahelians/W. Africans  67.5
Papuans                65

Median                 82.5 

*Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines
***Arabs, North Africans and SW Asians
****Incl. Central Indians
Small heads 1250-1299 cc.
Variable      IQ

Amerindians*  87
South Indians 81.5
Africans**    68.5

Median        81.5

Smallest heads 1200-1249 cc.
Variable           IQ

SE Asians          90
Far South Indians* 81

Median             85.5

*Incl. Sri Lanka, Seychelles, Comoros

This looks like a complete wreck to me. There’s just not much there, once you sit down and really do the map.

People with large heads have very high (Several European countries = 101) and very low IQ’s (Ugandans = 73). Some people with the smallest heads have very high IQ’s (Vietnamese = 99.5). There’s sort of a general trend, but the data is all over the place, like a drunk throwing darts at a dartboard.

I wish people would quit talking about this race = head size = IQ thing already.


Beals, K.L., Smith, C.L. & Dodd, S.M. 1984. Brain Size, Cranial Morphology, Climate, and Time Machines. Current Anthropology, 25:301-330.

Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. 2006. IQ and Global Inequality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.

Meisenberg, Gerhard. Winter 2003. IQ Population Genetics: It’s Not as Simple as You Think. Washington, DC: Mankind Quarterly, Volume XLIV, Number 2, pp.185-210.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Please follow and like us:

147 thoughts on “The Head Size/Race/IQ Trainwreck”

  1. When within group head size certainly relates to IQ (like height does). It’s when we get to between populations that it’s more tricky.

    This is probably true-ish for all levels of “populations”. I.e. the more “between population”ish you get the less reliable head size is, while the more “within population”ish the less (although OTH I understand that height doesn’t correlate well with IQ within families, so this might be a simplification). Note I’ve said “population”ish because there really isn’t any “discrete” clear point at which one population separate and a valid population, only “relative” degrees of separateness between populations and relative degrees of coherance as breeding populations.

    One thing that does interest me is that the surface area of the brain is also supposed to be predictive of IQ, so some people with high surface area to volume ratios (such as more tropical adapted/less “mongoloid” folks with less spherical heads) might be smarter than you would expect from brain size alone, while people with very spherical heads (and thus a low volume to surface area ratio) might be dumber than you’d expect from their brain volume (although the advantage might still be with the roundheads, as seems probable with the increasing evolutionary trend to rounder brains in the human lineage).

  2. Matt,

    If you’re right, then Whites — both Northern and Southern — would the most intelligent, since they generally have big, narrow and long heads, not to mention big foreheads.

    But I think it relates more to another form of intelligence, rather than to “G”.

    1. Well, if East Asians and Euro Whites have similar surface areas, but East Asians have higher brain volume and brain volume has some positive correlation to IQ (even after correcting for its correlation with surface area), then there’s no contradiction to Asians would be smarter in terms of IQ, all other things being equal (which there’s no reason to assume they are).

      I still don’t really think that you’d explain that much through brain size AND surface area explain that much, even if you factor in encephalisation – the body mass to brain comparison measure which is relatively predictive in species – (witness all the examples Robert gave re our large brained forebrains, small brained but clever South Asians, &c.), but you might get a closer fit.

    2. Actually if you look at the cephalic index map , east Chinese and Japanese have relatively long heads (CI 79-81) and alpines in Europe have relatively short heads (CI 83-88) So my conclusion is that East Asians (not north east) have relative large heads that are relatively long . East Asians also have relatively higher iq than Europeans .

  3. Interesting how divergent head size is throughout populations.

    I’ve thought about toying with some natality data and seeing if any particular (common) interracial pairing significantly increases chances of cesarean delivery.

    1. Hi Levi! Welcome to the site!

      Anecdotally, when I lived in Orange County in the 1980’s, there were many Vietnamese who had moved there in the previous 10 years. As you might expect, many White men started hooking up with the Vietnamese women. Anecdotal reports said that the women were too small to be birthing these large half-White babies and there were many C-sections as a result. Vietnamese women are apparently designed the birth Vietnamese babies.

      Keep in mind that Vietnamese have the smallest heads on the planet.

      1. Yeah but ultimately , as things get complicated technology wise, people with high IQ will eventually do better later on… So Vietnam and some other Asian countries will be able to catch up with the Europeans rather exponentially..

      2. You are forgetting that their country was heavily colonized by the French, and then invaded and bombed into oblivion by the American till the 1970s. And also recognize that they forced the French to surrender and fought off the Americans. Their country is full of half-exploded bombs, war-orphans and thugs resulting from the chaos of the American invasion. I wouldn’t write them off just yet.

    2. Tulio,

      You have Communism to mostly thank for that. Sure you could say that China is a communist state and it’s performing amazingly, but Vietnam never had the infrastructure in place that China had even before it became a pseudo communist state. Moreover, Vietnam is adopting capitalism at a much slower pase than China (maybe because of less corruption?).

      Vietnam is slowly adopting China’s model; it’ll have its shot sooner or later once the West is done with China. Then you’ll see amazing growth, not that the country’s GDP growth isn’t high already.

      And I kinda disagree with Robert — Vietnamese people don’t have small heads (based on what I see everyday). If anything, their heads are more inline with the Chinese heads I see.

    3. In the case of head size of Vietnamese people, what I meant to say was that they might be small relative to those of other Northeast Asian groups, but they are definitely not the smallest in world. Not even among the smallest.

    4. Yeah, but it was 3rd world even before communism. It’s not like they had this 1st world country that was subsequently destroyed by communism, like E. Germany.

    5. I don’t agree that Communism destroyed any country, much less turned any 1st world country into a 3rd world country. Certainly not in the case of East Germany. You guys have been reading too much anti-Communist garbage, but that’s all you get in the US.

      Vietnam’s development is certainly on a par with the region – Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Indonesia. None of them are really better off than Vietnam, and Vietnam has much less malnutrition than Thailand. We destroyed that country and then refused to pay to fix it up. They’ve been spending hand over foot to rebuild the place after the war ever since. Further, the US (and probably much of the rest of the West) embargoed them for decades for no fuckin reason, and the embargo was just lifted a few years ago.

      Vietnam hasn’t really moved to capitalism anyway as I understand. Certainly China has not. These are just Western propaganda lies. Most of the enterprises in China are still public enterprises and further, they are still formally owned by the workers. They are often run by small municipalities and labor collectives. Much of that huge economic growth is coming out of public enterprises.

    6. I guess its the same way how Japan was “primitive” before it adopted Western technology and lifestyle. Vietnam was colonized (by the French) and so didn’t have the same opportunity as Japan or China had. Could that be it?

      1. What about the rest of Europe and influence of communism? Why there is such a prejudice in Western Europe towards Eastern Europeans. 50 years of communism as a result of IIWW did such a bad impact on those countries betrayed by Allies. When you look back in the history Central and Eastern European countries were doing as well as West if not even better. Poland, Czech Republik, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania all over the centuries constituted defence wall and protected Europe from extraneous enemies: Mongols, Ottomans, Soviets (1921)

  4. Robert,

    I’m not saying Communism in itself destroyed anything in Vietnam. All I’m saying is that, to some extent, it has prevented Vietnam from developing into a wealthier country.

    1. That doesn’t really make sense. All of the surrounding region is about on a par developmental-wise with Vietnam. They got well and truly fucked by that way and we should have paid to clean up the mess and rebuild the damned place. The embargo seriously fucked them over for decades. Their development is exactly in par for the region.

    2. Compare North Korea to Vietnam — why is the latter’s GDP growing at a much faster rate than the former’s? Couldn’t it be because the former is more communist in regards to economic policy than the latter?

      Plus, Vietnam’s economy, especially its industrial sector, is growing at a much faster rate than those in the neighboring countries.

    3. Vietnam’s industrial sector is still very much a mixed economy as I understand it. Why would it be growing any faster than the rest of the region, since the region has generally capitalist economies? I don’t understand how Vietnam’s superior growth plays into this Communism – capitalism debate we are having here.

  5. If being a communist states means being slapped with an embargo, then communism is clearly not good for economic development. We’ve seen countries get utterly destroyed (South Korea) only to rise up, under the right conditions, to be big global players.

    1. North Korea has been embargoes from Day One by the US, and I guess much of the West too. Every Communist country automatically gets embargoed. If I am not mistaken we also embargoed the USSR, Red China and all of Eastern Europe too during the entirety of the Cold War.

      North Korea is a very bad example for Communist economic development. They had a higher GDP than South Korea from 1945-1980. That’s 35 years. After that, it is true, South Korea passed them. The North’s economy collapsed in 1990 when the price of oil went up by 10 times overnite. Imagine the US in 2011 if the price of gas went from $3/gallon to $30/gallon. Think about it. Their agriculture was all mechanized and they were heavily industrialized. There was no oil to run the factories and plants and none to run the farm machinery so the industrial and agricultural economies both collapsed. It’s been collapsed ever since. The whole time they were getting embargoed, and there was even a famine in the mid-1990’s really no fault of the regime. They had the worst floods in 100 years plus the ag economy had collapsed. 600,000 starved. Weird thing is the West could have prevented that, but I believe that the West refused to provide them aid.

      Keep in mind that capitalism starves 14 million people to death every single year, year in and year out, and you never hear one word about it. Most of those deaths are in South Asia – Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

      Vietnam and China both have very mixed economies. It’s not valid to call either one capitalist really. They’re still socialist countries in my book anyway.

      1. ” They had a higher GDP than South Korea from 1945-1980. That’s 35 years”

        I don’t really think that that is really telling. I don;t think that north korea has ever been liked with advanced technology like south korea has. If north korea is anything ike the soviet union, then it probably produced heavy industrial goods and military hardware and had a complete dearth of consumer products. When I think south korea I think robots and effiecient cars. When I think north korea I think large quantities of obsolete military hardware and people eating birds. North Korea’s economy grew faster than ours did last year, but I would still rather live here (and you know I’m no laissez faire capitalist).

    2. I believe that the US rebuilt South Korea after war, along with Germany, Japan, etc. It was meant to be a showcase vs. the North.

      The Stalinist economy has pretty much broken down in North Korea for 15 years now. I’m not sure what kind of system they have, but it’s not exactly Orthodox Communism anyway. Not anymore.

    3. Seems like there’s always some famine that happens in communist countries that wipes out hundreds of thousands if not millions. Look at China’s great famines. Cambodians had to resort to eating spiders they dug up just to survive. I think these were man-made events. Capitalism has it’s flaws, but Communism is just fucked up to the core. There hasn’t been one example of a communist success. At least not one that didn’t have to throttle back and incorporate capitalism into their economy, like China. And then that’s not even getting into all the other shit communist governments do like the censorship of the internet, lack of freedom to protest, etc.

      I’ll take capitalism any day, warts and all. I just think we need some elements of socialist safeguards and need progressive taxation to try and stop the rich from getting too rich.

    4. Another thing, while there have been totalitarian capitalist countries, totalitarianism isn’t necessary for capitalism. Yet you can’t have communism without totalitarianism. It’s self-contradictory.

    5. If you oppose Communism because it’s totalitarian, that makes sense to me. Communism *is* totalitarian. I’m one of these new Commie types who believes in Commie democracy, but that’s a minority view. Most Commies believe that what we think of as democracy is “bourgeois democracy” and they think that’s a bunch of crap.

      I think that if socialism is really the best way for the majority of the population, it ought to come up for a vote from time to time. If it’s really best, the people ought to vote to keep it going. If they don’t like it or it’s not the best, they can just get rid of it. And if they want to go back and live in some capitalist 3rd world shithole and get rid of their superior socialist system with all these illness, death, starvation, slums and misery, I say fuck em. They signed their own death warrant.

    6. I’m trying to visualize what a non-totalitarian communist country would be like and it’s hard to envision that.

    7. Communists have run local governments in Indian and Italian states for decades. Totally democratic. Allende was a Communist, but the government was democratic. But this is what happens when you try that in a democracy, the ruling classes destroy it and overthrow you. That’s why Commies say socialist democracy is a nice idea, but it’s not possible, so they support a dictaprole instead.

      They might be right, but I’m not wild about dictatorships.

      1. Maybe the key is wiping out the ruling classes in the begining, then you can have a democracy without the ruling classes overthrowing it. I don’t other countries would allow it to happen though. Especially not other upper classes of other countries.

  6. Well, I too think Vietnam and China are not capitalist countries. My argument is that because both countries have moved further away from the communist end of the communities-capitalist spectrum, they’ve been rewarded with faster economic development. Vietnam and China were not always the mixed economies that they are today and they suffered for it (lower economic prosperity).

    Frankly, I don’t think capitalism is for every country. As it is, it’s not suitable for most sub-Saharan countries, but in the case of Vietnam, I think the country could have benefited much in the same way as South Korea benefited after that country was destroyed.

    Vietnamese and Korean people are very similar people with rather high IQs. They also have very similar cultures as well. What worked for one could just as well work for the other.

    1. “What worked for one could just as well work for the other.”

      What I meant is that what worked for one “may” just as well work for the other.

  7. Yeah. Howard Garner’s Theory of multiple intelligences would apply here.

    In Jared Taylor’s seminal work “Guns Germs and Steel” He observes that the native indignious aboriginal population appears to be more intelligent that the average westerner, in several ways, such as their ability to quickly memorize trails, and they have a large memorization of poisonous plants, and ways to prepare them. he is astounded by their ability to differentiate between plants that are remarkably similar.

    Black individuals appear to have an advantage in “freestyle rap” than whites and asians, and they are better at making split second decisions like in basketball

    So, this ties in to the head size, and multiple intelligence.

    See, with two populations with the same head size, their net sum of “multiple intelligences” turn out to be equal. Your not going to see a clear correlation between head size and IQ measure by linguistic/mathematical ability. However, you will probably see a stronger correlation between head size, and the sum total of multiple intelligences.

    It explains the sterotype why jews are intelligent, but are clumsy. They have a high verbal intelligence, but at the price of a physical athleticism.

    Also, why asians are good at math, but introverted, and relatively weak in the “bar scene”

    1. Tulio,

      I’m good at math and have an athletic build (fine motor skills). I’m so physically defined that people automatically think I workout, although I have started working to improve my strength (I’m weak for my appearance). However, I am/was socially retaded. I say “was” because I have made great improvements over the past few years. I’m pretty inconsistent, though. (there is a good reason my social awkwardness, but I’ll leave for a more suitable time)

    2. I hit the gym a few days a week. I’m in decent shape, but having a good physique is definitely not in my genes. I know you said you’re African. I notice that many Africans dudes seem to have a naturally good build and have good muscular definition even when they don’t work out. I’m envious.

    3. I am the only one in my family who is very defined and muscular. Both my brothers are/were scrawny in appearance. By dad is very muscular but has no definition. I got his muscles, but I don’t know where the definition comes from.

      My scrawny younger brother, after taking the gym very seriously, looked like a body builder until I convinced him to tone it down and to focus on definition. Am I right to say that girls don’t like guys that look like brutes? Anyways, he’s happier with his appearance.

      I think Africans are probably more defined on average than African Americans, but not by much (the white genes). But I think both groups are probably equally muscular. If not, the average difference is negligible at best.

    4. The only thing definition comes from is low body fat percentage. Once you get down in the single digits of body fat %, your abs will start showing. Maybe it’s your diet.

    5. I wouldn’t say its diet because my brothers and I have the same diet. All of us do have near absent body fat, though. We can’t seem to get fat (no signs of even getting fat) no matter how much we eat. I don’t want to jinx it though.

      I guess the reason why I appear to have more definition than they do is because I have more muscles and, thus, more contours.

    6. Also, why asians are good at math, but introverted,

      “Asians” isn’t a race and intelligent people tend to be introverted when surrounded by idiots. I know for a fact that Chinese raised in China are not introverted but they’re bored to death by the vapid hordes of sluts and retards in America.

        1. Vapid sluts might be lovely ladies but they’re still vapid.

          Vapid is sexy. Sunken destroyed hulls aren’t. Learn with age.

  8. well, that dosen’t take away from the rest of the idea.

    How does it hold up?

    1. I am not sure. Blacks score better than any other race in verbal memory. Those huge brains of the Masai must be full of brain cells, so why are their IQ’s so well. Perhaps it is not so much the size of your brain the number of your cells as the specialization of your brain.

      For instance, Inuit have the largest brains on Earth, yet their IQ’s are only 94 (setting US White IQ at 103). Why the paradox? While Inuit probably have more brain cells than any other humans, a large number of them may have gone over to visuospatial processing, for instance, memorizing how to find your way home in the Arctic, where failure to make it back correctly on time may well mean certain death.

      So the large Masai brain may well be specialized for something, but it’s not necessarily something that is going to be measured on an IQ test.

      Elephants have bigger brains than humans, with more neurons. Are they smarter than people? No. Why not? Perhaps lack of specialization.

      I agree with Diamond that Papuans are not stupid, but whatever their intelligence is, IQ tests don’t seem to measure it very well.

      1. “Elephants have bigger brains than humans, with more neurons. Are they smarter than people? No. Why not?”

        Obviously it’s negro admixture at work.

      2. Sheer brain mass doesn’t mean much alone. It’s the forebrain which matters most, and the racial gaps only increase when you consider this.

    2. well, elephants have about 20 times the body mass of people. So, a LOT of their brain has to be devoted towards their big bodys

    3. Yeah, well, this specialization to different areas is the multiple intelligence theory.

      I think that its a combo of brain size, specialization, and some brain efficiency, like moores law(how fast the neurons can send their message)..and a few other things I can’t convey effectively.

    4. While Inuit probably have more brain cells than any other humans,

      the flynn effect might not have happend much for them yet

    5. yeah, the flynn effect, with expanding head sizes due to food, make this graph even less accurate

  9. I think that it’s not just the Jews that are Clumsy — Caucasians in general seem to be built clumsy (moreso than any other race of people), including the Indians. They seem to have very poor motor skills. The further North and West you travel, the clumsier they are and look. Blacks and Asians (East and Southeast) seem to have finer motor skills and more athletic builds. Sure the Asians look skinny, but that doesn’t make them any less athletic. They have superb balance.

    If they put their mind to it, they could give blacks a run for their money in sports. Keep in mind some of the strongest people (both men and women) are of East Asian origin, but these are the stockier specimens. I am basing this on Olympic results.

    I find Caucasians to be more realistic in their arts than the East Asians. They do realism a lot better. I also think they have a better grasp of geometry and the maths than any other group, contrary to what the IQ tests say. I think that one main reason why East Asians have higher maths scores is because they are simply a lot more progressive than Whites when it comes to education. When North Americas think about Scientists and Asia, they think about Indians and not necessarily the Chinese, Korean or Japanese. Why is that?

    I suspect that Caucasians lost fine motor skills for these abilities. But these are all speculations on my part.

    All this is coming from a West African. I have no agenda. It’s just what I’ve observed.

      1. Culture’s important. The ways of thinking make you differently. Why had East Asians to face difficult times in recent history? It’s because they think differently from whites, who had their own analytic way of thinking, in other word, scientific thinking. Recently East Asians began to adopt such way of thinking. In 50 years, East Asians must dominate Nobel science awards.

      2. No, you’re not. Your elites are just far less concerned with the welfare of the people and spend their time trying to glory-whore and enrich themselves. Highly intelligent East Asians create 8-10% GDP growth year on year with absolutely no natural resources. No white nation has ever come close to doing the same without mooching off their imperialist neighbors or being tax havens.

        1. About right.

          Face facts White people, gooks and slants are simply superior to us palefaces!

          Make fun of their looks all you want. Sure they look like aliens. But at least in the case of the females, they look like beautiful aliens, at least to me anyway.

        2. White people look far “weirder” as in having more offputting deformities per capita, I would say. Northern Chinese/Tibetans are far more pleasing to the eye on average. Not to say all whites are ugly, of course.

        3. I’d rather die than pick up shit for a dirty slope (look in the mirror – not much of a forebrain to give your skulls contour). You don’t deserve to be our vassals or slaves, that right is reserved for more advanced peoples.

          You’re not even worthy of cleaning up piss in Chinese urinals.

        4. I’d rather die than have some dirty slope dominate me.

          Malcom X for whitey right here. White men, free yourselves from the clutches (pussies) of the Asian woman.

          It’s about fucking time. Right BAG?

        5. They can’t help it. The hook noses have brainwashed them into believing the lowest 5% trash of “Asian” women are goddesses.

        6. hook noses


          Fun thing I learned about them. English blame the Irish and Scots, the Irish blame the Scots and English, the Scots blame the Irish and English.

          See zero accountability and they all believe Great Britain is the most accountable people in the world. Loons. Fucking Loons.

        7. The hook noses have brainwashed them into believing the lowest 5% trash of “Asian” women are goddesses.

          Poor hook noses gettin’ the blame for Yellow fever. What’s it got to do with them? You should use some of that famed Chinese introspection, I’m sure you’ll work it out.

        8. Fun thing I learned about them. English blame the Irish and Scots, the Irish blame the Scots and English, the Scots blame the Irish and English.

          No, no, no, no, no…..Everyone knows it’s the Welsh that are the problem!

        9. LOL speaking about welfare, the Chinese government spends all it’s money on it’s politicians, who in turn use the tax payer money to pay for hookers in Vegas; I am guessing these would be Caucasian hookers and Russian pros. If for example, these women are so enticing that the Asian politicians have to spend public money just to even have a chance with them because no Asian male in human history or existence never had a chance unless they had money, fall kneedown for Caucasian left over trash whores, it just is saying that you Chingooks aren’t worth much, are inferior to Caucasians, and don’t think highly of yourselves.

          No wonder Asian men storm the blogs in fury with gay pictures of homo Asian men and white women liking Asian men; Asian women must be so asinine and alien looking as to bring shame and anger to their own kind. Asian males must be an emasculated frustrated lot good sirs!

        10. Can anyone understand what this retarded subhuman sand nigger is blabbering about?

          There are lots of Russian models in Northeast China married to guys who are below average in terms of wealth, not that this sand nigger camel jockey would know anything about money because his oil sheikhs are too busy buying whores to spend any money on his education.

        11. xera you are egyptian and honestly both middle easterners and indians are kinda ugly,the handsome middles easteners and indians are the most european looking,plus both middle east and india failed economically thanks to bad religions (islam and hinduism),accept it,east asians are better both in money AND LOOKS TOO (i prefer a handsome east asian like taecyeon over an average indian or middle eastern men,plus indians and middle eastern men aren’t as tall or bodybuild as whites either,you talk too much for an egyptian) is like comparing an amerindian with an east asian

        12. @ericka, they’re Indian groups like the Jat Sikhs according to medical studies that tower over whites by a foot sometimes, the average Jat in India is 5 ft 7, the same Jat is 6 ft 2 in the UK when raised in a better environment, here is proof,

          I can also name some tall people from that area, with way bigger robust builds

          The khali- 7 ft 3, 400 pounds

          Sim Bhullar- 7 ft 5, 310 pounds

          Tanveer Bhullar- 7 ft 3

          Satnam Singh- 7 ft 1

          Rajesh Kumar- 7 ft 5, 350 pounds

          They all belong to the same or similar ethnic tribes

        13. @ericka, in the UK, Pakistani Muslims beat white people up every time, Pakistanis win every Muslim vs EDL fight, because they’re taller, robust, and way more rugged in nature than anybody there, just go to YouTube and type in 2 Muslims vs 60 EDL members and then type in EDL getting knocked out, plus look how much they messed Tommy Robinson’s face up, not sure about Egyptians though, they seem soft and quiet in the UK like East Asians, but they still aren’t little weak losers like whites, no wonder they’re so many white British women that convert to Islam and even Princess Diana had a Pakistani lover too.

        14. LOL…what are your sources for such laughable claims?

          Life Expectancy in the year 1961:
          – Switzerland: 71
          – US: 70
          – UK: 70
          – China: 43

          Only 15%-25% of China was literate in the year 1950….only very very very recently have the Chinese gained a life expectancy above Europe’s from the Middle Ages…LOL

          Not only that but China has only 4 Nobel prizes in science in a population of more than 1350 million…compared to say Switzerland which has 20 Nobel prizes in science in a population of 8 million or Austria which has 18 Nobel prizes in science in a population of 8.5 million.

          No one can explain why the Chinese have so very few achievements considering their brain size, average IQ, and population size, I guess it could be:
          – Little variation (meaning few geniuses)
          – Chinese brain is structured differently

          When you have a population size that large of more than 1350 million we would expect many more achievements from the Chinese…instead their achievements are among proportionally the lowest of any country in the world…almost the same as Africa.

      3. The Caucasians also seem to be better with the Sciences

        Read the Tao Te Ching. Science is just another word for philosophy (systematic philosophy). And don’t capitalize science.

        Don’t be a just another black man worshipping at the gates of white science. Free yourself.

        1. No such thing as white science. White scientists are essentially a predominantly asexual, self-segrated caste of people who typically loathe and abhor white society. They have extremely low reproduction rates showing that very high IQ in whites is a fluke and not a relatively common phenomenon as in East Asia. It’s just that they tend to come from well-connected, exploitative, rent seeking families that provide them with means. Many white intellectual elites openly despise their own race. The liberals want to destroy whiteness and the conservatives want to ruin everyone to enrich themselves, their “fellow whites” included.

        2. No such thing as white science.

          I’m talking about the prison indoctrination (aka public education) in the West. Nothing more.

        3. @ericka, some Indian ethnic groups tower over whites by a foot, like the Jats, who average at 5 ft 10 in India and 6 ft 4 in better environments, some even reach passed 7 ft easily, go look up the Khali.

    1. East Asians do better on math despite spending 1/3rd per pupil on education simply because they’re smarter. However highly intelligent whites are far less socially competent than their East Asian counterparts and are more likely to be focused on their theoretics than are East Asians. East Asian polymaths tend to marry and have a lot of children and are as a whole more involved with the real world.

  10. My head size is huge, and yet I am very stupid. So, I keep my head size to myself and inside my pants and nobody gets hurt. Now shut up you idiot!!!!!!!!

  11. On “IQ and communism”, apparently people from East Germany still lag behind West Germany, something between 5 or 10 IQ points, according with one of those “IQ of the world” books, whatever it’s the actual title. I do not think that there’s necessarily any causal correlation though, even though, in diametrical opposition to Lindsay, I believe that communism is largely a tragic failure, wherever it has been tried, and whatever seems to suggest otherwise is likely to be a bit bogus, akin to these typical white-supremacist “proofs” of their awesomeness. Not that the pure market running free, without any sort of restriction from wisdom of mobs is the eighth wonder of the world or something like that, anyway. But between any of the top communist leaders and figures like Reagan or Ron Paul, the latter are the lesser evil, by far.

  12. A study in Vietnam has proved that North Vietnamese people’s average IQ is 12-15 points higher than South Vietnamese. The reason is that South Vietnamese are mixed with the natives of Cochinchina such as Cham, Khmer, Montagnard…
    BTW it’s very informative! Thank you so much.

  13. I don’t believe there’s a strong correlation between head size and IQ. My father and his father, although they were much larger overall than I am (6’1″ and 5’11” respectively to my 5’5″), had heads a half-inch smaller in diameter than mine, and my head is average for a woman. All of us roughly equal in intelligence as far as I can tell (don’t know their IQ). (For what it’s worth, Scandinavian & German on their side of the family, mostly Anglo-Amerindian-Celt on the maternal side. ) I’ve met plenty of intellectually-challenged people (various races) with large heads.
    Only tangentially related, but rapid head growth in infants (at 6-9 months) is an early sign of autism.

  14. the double-speak is amazing.
    listen up you egalitarian anti-white marxist:

    head-size =/= cranial capacity
    no white racist, like me, ever claimed we’re smarter cause our heads are bigger, it’s OUR BRAINS THAT ARE BIGGER, AND OUR CORTEX that has ~40mil+ synapses when compared to that of a subhuman.

    science is a bitch, libtard.

  15. “[…] with the increasing evolutionary trend to rounder brains in the human lineage”

    I think it may be a bit more complicated than that. While there’s a tendency of increased globularity, this is in big part due to higher cranial vaults, and not so much by increasing brachycephaly. If I’m not mistaken, anatomically modern humans have more of a tendency towards dolichocephaly rather than the opposite. That is, seen from above, our brains tend to be more oval than round when compared with the brains of gorillas, chimpanzees, and earlier hominids (while H. erectus may be more long-headed in one aspect, the inner brain vault is more rounded, from the top view; there’s much of the head length on these hominids that does not overlap with brain, being only bony brow ridges and jaws, unlike modern humans). However, our brains are also taller.

    I don’t remember having read anything stating it directly, it’s just my general impression from sporadic readings. The best I could find is this graph which I’m not sure is really representative:

    I’m not so sure if it’s quite correct to say that there’s such “evolutionary trend” to begin with, but at least I think that there may be underlying complexities beneath the superficial appearances and common terminology. That is, I’m a bit skeptical of the implied notion that long-headedness of modern humans can be carelessly taken as a “homologous” trait, continuous with, earlier human’s long-headedness. In fact, judging by that graph alone, perhaps one could argue the very opposite: brain vaults that are rounder from the top is an archaic trait, and long brain vaults is the real evolutionary trend on modern humans.

    But I don’t really know much and this may well be BS.

  16. You would have to study head size and IQ within populations. There might be a correlation within each population mentioned. It doesn’t really work when you compare the IQ and head sizes of different populations because their environments are so different. Its theoretically possible for a larger headed population to have a lower IQ for environmental reasons but actually have a greater potential for intelligence. So you have to look for a correlation within each population.

  17. Inuits, for example, may have an IQ of 93 but have the greatest natural potential on earth for intelligence. They might be potential geniuses in bad circumstances. That’s extreme and probably not the case but when different groups have such different circumstances, you can’t necessarily tell which is naturally the smartest from their IQ scores..

  18. Remember that Einstein had a relatively average sized head, but specific portions of his brain were larger. Overall head size has little to do with IQ, but the size of certain parts of the brain might.

  19. IQ testing is bullshit and doesn’t adequately measure the variant types of intelligence valued among and across different cultures.

  20. Check out Human Design. Not everyone is born with intellect and actual intelligence.

    The brain is like a computer processor, CPU, just because someone has a bigger brain doesn’t mean they have the energy to use all those neurons.

  21. I don’t know where you’re getting your data on head size or test scores but you desperately DESPERATELY need to read Richard lynn’s “race and intelligence: an evolutionary analysis”. He identifies 10 human races and serves up excellent data on the IQ’s and crania of all of them finding a most potent correlation indeed. The only real exception is big brained first nations people (especially Eskimos ) having double digit IQ’s but this makes perfect sense. They were selected for high IQ to survive cold winters, but because of their small populations, they had no high IQ mutations so all natural selection could do was make their brains bigger, but since brain size only explains 1/5th of the variation in IQ, they lacked the genetic mutations to get as smart as their big population high mutation east Asian cousins

    The smallest brains in the world belong to the lowest IQ blacks (african pygmies, and australoids) IQ 54 – 67. Small brained Indians are probably austaloid too

    1. I’ve already read all of that stuff. The correlation is rather weak. Ugandans have bigger heads than Italians. Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads around, and they have very high IQ’s. The biggest heads of all are Eskimos, but apparently most of the space is gone over to visuospatial stuff for finding their way in the Arctic, so it doesn’t show up much on IQ tests.

      Jews had a very small population too, and they weren’t even a real race. They quickly evolved very high IQ’s in spite of that. I doubt if small population size places a limit on high IQ genes. There were hardly any Jews, and they had just enough high IQ genes to select away for them.

      The brains of Indians don’t vary across the land. Their brains are about the same size as Vietnamese brains, but Vietnamese have ~17 IQ points on the Indians.

      1. Prior to MRI studies, brain size was a very tough thing to measure so different studies using different methodologies gave wildly different results so a lot of the anomalous results you are citing are probably just statistical noise. The wisdom of Richard Lynn was to compare the cranial capacity of 10 different races all measured by the same study. Here are the results:

        Arctic Peoples           1,443   IQ 91
        East Asians        1,416 IQ 105
        whites.               1,369       IQ 99
        Native Americans 1,366 IQ 86
        Southeast Asians       1,332 IQ 87
        Pacific Islanders         1,317 IQ 85
        Non-white caucasoids 1,293 IQ 84
        Congoids                 1,280 IQ 67
        Capoids                  1,270 IQ 54
        Australoids                1,225 IQ 62

        You can see a very strong correlation between the mean cranial capacity of each race and the mean IQ. East Asians have the highest IQ and the second biggest brains. The 3 black races (congoids, capoids and australoids) have the 3 smallest brains and the 3 lowest IQ’s

        1. Oh and what Rob cited is the largest the largest study done on the subject of geographic variation in brain size.

      2. Small population must limit IQ because the fewer people, the lower the probability of a rare high IQ mutation emerging. That’s just common sense. Because of the lack of rare mutations among small population arctic people, natural selection for high IQ in the cold arctic could only act on existing variation (brain size) but had no fancy new mutations that increase brain efficiency to select from.

        But you make a good point about Jews. Jews had a small population but unlike arctic people, native Americans, australoids and capoids, they were not geographically isolated so they could constantly absorb high IQ
        Mutations from the huge and diverse populations around them. By contrast arctic people were cut off from the last 10,000 years or so of brain mutations so they are about 1 SD dumber than their large population mongoloid counterparts (East Asians) just as capoids are about 1 SD dumber than their large population Negroid counterparts (congoids).

        1. Yes but Jews were hardly absorbing any non-Jewish genes since the year 1000.

          I don’t regard the theory about Eskimos to be a good theory. Why would genes for larger brains be any more common than genes for smarter brains, and anyway, the two correlate as you say over and over. I don’t know why they got such big brains, but one theory is that most of the space has gone to V-S skills, so it didn’t raise IQ all that much.

        2. Genes for larger brains just represented a quantitative change (more of the same) so evolution could just select from existing variation, but genes for better organized brains represented a qualitative change and thus relied on extremely rare mutations that just didn’t occur in small isolated races. Eskimos needed to be smart to survive the cold arctic, but given their small population, there were no new mutations for brain organization, so natural selection could only make them smarter by selecting the biggest brains in the tribe, but without brain organization, their mean IQ would never get to 100 without becoming so big it placed impossible burdens on child birth, musculoskeletal systems, and caloric intake. Thus Eskimos topped out at 91.

          Meanwhile East Asians who enjoyed a huge population full of new and exciting mutations were able to acquire BOTH big AND organized brains.
          Congoids had a huge population, so they enjoyed mutations for brain organization, but because you didn’t need much smarts to survive their warm climate, the advantages of bigger brains were negated by the burdens big brains place on child birth, calories etc, so they simply evolved small but organized brains and their IQ’s stayed low.

          Capoids also lived in the intellectually undemanding sub-sahara, so they too were unselected for big expensive brains, but given their small isolated population, they didn’t even acquire mutations for brain organization, so with brains that were BOTH small AND unorganized, they are the lowest of the low.

          So you need to divide humanity into 2 tracks. The big population agricultural types who had access to new mutations (East Asians, congoids) and the small geographically isolated mostly hunter/gather types who retained old unorganized brains (Eskimos, capoids). Within each track, those who lived in cold climates evolved much bigger brains and higher IQ (East Asians, Eskimos ) than those who stayed behind in the warm tropics (congoids, capoids) but track one has about a 1 SD edge over track 2, thanks to mutations.

        3. Meanwhile East Asians who enjoyed a huge population full of new and exciting mutations were able to acquire BOTH big AND organized brains.

          So that’s what happened to me! Nice.

  22. What a racist breakdown “Objectivity” gives. He assigns all Whites the same, gives them an average IQ of 99 and uses lower case. What an overblown racist.

    The fact is many countries have a IQ of 105 such as some Nordic countries.

    Use European instead of White when you feel the need to be a racist twat.

  23. Are those IQ estimates & head measurements of actual Manchu people or from the majority Han who live among them? What I’m getting at is are you sure you aren’t comparing Han IQ with Manchu head size?

  24. Any article that calls Inuit people Eskimos is not an intelligent one. Furthermore, were these intelligence tests administered in the people’s native languages? Do they value the same skills as the ones the different ethnicities cultures do? No, I highly doubt it.

  25. Robert,

    This is almost a year old, but where did you find information about Maasai brains? I’ve searched for that before. They are tall, like other Africans consuming significant dairy, and that seems to be the case everywhere. Except I don’t know about Mongolian nomads. I suspect that that diet just stimulates overall growth.

    I think I saw a quote, from Weston A Price’s book, about coastal Australian aborigines having larger skulls than inland. That’d be interesting to measure in far north areas like Canada and Greenland, where diet can range from high red meat to high seafood, including seaweed/sea vegetables.

    Regarding brain vs body size, it seems clear that brain size is more conserved in the face of calorie deprivation, so that’s something to consider. Calorie restricted animals should have larger brain-to-bodyweight ratios. One paper that was looking at seizure protection of ketogenic diets showed that rats on a diet very high in coconut oil, which almost always increases metabolic rate, were quite small but with normal heads/brains, giving them a high ratio. This was compared to rats on standard chow, ketogenic diet with butter, keto with flaxseed oil, and keto with mixed fats.

    I think what you mentioned before is likely correct, about certain mental abilities just not showing up in IQ tests. IQ is a touchy subject because most people take offense to the idea of “total mental ability (or potential),” even though that’s not what it tests. To me it is a learned skill that, like everything, is somewhat influenced by genetics–just more ambiguous than sprinting speed for example.

  26. QUOTE”The biggest heads of all are in Northern Chinese (Manchurians), Eskimos, Alaskan natives, Siberians and Mongolians. The Northern Chinese IQ is 105, the Mongolian IQ is 100, the Eskimo IQ is 91, the Alaska native IQ is 87 and the Siberian native IQ is not known.

    Note that Amerindians in Canada, Alaska, Mexico (!) and Tierra Del Fuego have larger heads (1400-1449 cc.) than any Europeans, yet Europeans have higher IQ’s than any of these Amerindians, who have IQ’s of 87. In addition, Uralics and Northeast Asians also have very large heads. Northeast Asians have median IQ’s of 105, Uralics have IQ’s of 96 and Amerindians have IQ’s of 87. “END-QUOTE

    As you had said, that pretty much buries the white supremacist relation between head size and IQ. Of course, they always focus in on blacks, and not Amerindians when looking at head size. They say the head size of blacks is different to accommodate a so called “smaller brain”, and hence the low IQ.

    Actually, in the 19th century there was a big thing about head size (as well as Darwinism), as it was used to justify black slavery, as well as colonialism.

    1. The question would then be: Does a large head indicate a larger brain, and does a larger brain equal a higher IQ? That’s assuming you also have a good environment.

  27. Hello, the source that you cited in regards to brain volumes actually backs up the theories that you are claiming to disprove.

  28. Actually the smallest cranial capacities actually belong to Australian Aboriginals, yet you claim south and south east Asians 0_o.

    I think that brain size does in fact correlate with average intelligence. But skull circumference is a different thing that brain size.

    Some groups have equally large heads but in fact not equally large brains.

    A very intense difference would be comparing a Gorilla skull size to a chimps. Yet the chimp actually has the larger brain.

    Neuron packing order in primates is all the same, this means that a primate brain that is larger does in fact have more neurons.

    Keep in mind I am talking about general average intelligence of a population here.

    And in the world IQ of large populations does show generally it to go East Asians>Europeans>Africans>Australoids.

    And brain size does the very same pathway.

    As far as gifted individuals? They aren’t necessarily a result of a slightly larger brain, they are usually a result of a differently developed brain where one area is more developed than another area. Or even a differently shaped brain may lead to that. Basically they think a little differently to the average person. Mostly they excel in logic and figuring out things of the world.

    Men’s heads seem roughly 20% larger when looking at them. But this doesn’t mean that men’s brains are 20% larger, you see men have more bony growth on their skulls and more primitive features. This means that the actual brain difference on the inside of the skull is more like only a 10% difference according to all studies.

    Males and female do think a bit differently, but to say that males are 10% ahead of females in logic isn’t far fetched. Females do have some advantages mentally over males though. I am in no way claiming that men are geniuses. Many men I meet are total idiots that make me facepalm.

    1. Well, I’m a Black American with an IQ of 120, and I think the whole IQ thing is a sham because there is no sound testing measure for intelligence. (By the way, did you all know African babies show greater intelligence than other babies per your tests.)

      1. Can you give me some evidence on this business about Black babies scoring highest of all on tests.

        Congratulations on your very high IQ score, my dear. A lot of governments and corporations are looking for bright Black women nowadays. You may have a bright future in front of you.

  29. I’m wondering how accurate the brain size data cited here is since it contradicts almost every other brain size data.

    “Average brain volumes (excluding cerebral spinal fluid, meninges, and other nonbrain tissue) of 1130 cc for women and 1260 cc for men were reported based on normal subjects of European ancestry from a convergence of studies”
    – “Evolving Knowledge of Sex Differences in Brain Structure, Function, and Chemistry”,

    Based on that study Europeans have very small brains…smaller than many African tribes.

    It seems that brain size varies greatly from individual to individual so I’m not sure if any brain size data can be accurate…especially for the populations with high genetic diversity and high populations.

    Also what about the non-genetic factors influencing brain size? It’s known that malnutrition impairs brain growth, lowers IQ, and lowers height.

    For instance the average South Korean male is 5’8″ compared to the average North Korean male, only 5’5″ even though North Koreans and South Koreans are genetically nearly the same…this is because North Korea has one of the highest hunger rates in the world.

    So how much would malnutrition lower brain size since we know that it does indeed lower height?

    Does this mean that the brain size data in the populations with high malnutrition rates is inaccurate?

    It seems that brain size is influenced by many genetic and non-genetic factors.

    Also what’s the explanation for the Chinese having so very very few Nobel prize worthy contributions considering their large brain, high average IQ, and extremely high population size of more than 1350 million?

    India and China have around the same amount of Nobel prizes in science even though China has a higher population and higher average IQ….so what does this mean?

    The explanation given for India’s contributions is a high population and high variation…a study done of Indians in Madhya Pradesh found their brains to be large 1380 cc…so there would be probably be many large brained Indians in India.

    But what’s the explanation for China’s few contributions? Is it possibly little variation..meaning few super-large brains or few super high-IQ geniuses?

    4 Nobel prizes in science (8 if you count every ethnic Chinese) is extremely low for such a high population (1350+ million) and high average IQ.

    Switzerland has 20 Nobel prizes in science in a population of only 8 million.
    Austria has 18 Nobel prizes in science in a population of only 8.5 million.

    There’s literally 1300+ million more people in China than in Switzerland or Austria!

    Wouldn’t the Chinese have like at least 20-30 Nobel prizes in science by now?

    The Chinese seem to be homogeneous so I guess little variation could explain it…

    When we look at the contributions and things the Chinese have been doing they aren’t in the Nobel prize worthy range…for instance China’s supercomputer, the fastest in the world uses 3,120,000 cores to achieve 33,862.7 TFlop/s compared to say the US’ supercomputer using only 560,640 cores to achieve 17,590.0 TFlop/s….

  30. Also I think it’s important to note that IQ isn’t more important than brain size and natural selection.

    Based on Richard Lynn’s data, natural selection favors a larger brain in the conditions difficult to survive in (without writing and technology)…this means the large-brained groups have better cognition connected to survival regardless of their IQ.

    IQ tests can’t measure all levels of cognition or be as accurate as natural selection…so the large-brained Arctic and Native Americans must have better cognition connected to survival (but not necessarily IQ).

    Natural selection has to do with survival not made up IQ tests.
    Natural selection tells us that a larger brain helps humans survive.

    This means the larger-brained groups have more cognition in general than the smaller-brained groups regardless of their IQ.

    For instance elephants have larger brains than humans and also more neurons too (267 billion vs. 86 billion for humans), but slightly less neurons in their cerebral cortex (11 billion for elephants around 19-23 billion for humans).

    But elephants in the wild have a higher life expectancy than humans (around 70 for elephants, around 40s-50s (or lower) for humans in the wild without technology, modern medicine, etc…), so this means elephants are more intelligent than humans in terms of survival!

    Since IQ is made up I’m pretty sure there must be a way artificially raise your IQ…

    According to the Binet IQ scale, an IQ from 90-109 is in the same range..meaning an IQ of 90 is the same as 109….so it seems that average IQ, once it goes into the 90s doesn’t matter much…it seems that in general IQ tests lose their accuracy after the 90s.

    There’s also one thing that doesn’t fit into the data, Barbados, a 92.4% African country with a population size of less than 300,000.

    Barbados has a high HDI, and a population size of less than 300,000:
    – Cardinal Warde, from Barbados, is a full Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, PhD. in physics at Yale University
    – Velmer Headley, from Barbados, is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Brock University

    Multiple studies show PhD. physicists and full Professors as having among the highest average IQs…but how would such a thing be possible in a population of less than 300,000 if the average IQ is low?

    I guess it would be possible if the standard deviation is high.
    If you understand statistics you know that the higher the standard deviation the more useless the mean is.

    Barbados is still more developed than China and India.

    Since Africans have the most genetic diversity and brain size seems to be influenced by many factors there would probably be many Africans with large brains (1400 cc or higher).

    Since IQ is just made up I’m pretty sure the larger-brained groups with low IQs can be conditioned to have higher IQs….but natural selection tells us that brain size is more important than IQ.

    1. This is just wrong. You say a 90 IQ is the same as a 109 IQ. No way is that true. US Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, have IQ’s of ~90. Northeast Asians like Chinese, Koreans and Japanese have IQ’s of 105. If you go live in a country full of 90 IQ people and then move to a country full of 105 IQ people, the difference will knock your socks off. And that’s only 15 IQ points.

      1. No, it’s not wrong.

        The Binet IQ classification says that an IQ from 90 – 109 is in the same range.
        IQ is just a made up intelligence test whereas brain size is really real.

        As for your comments about Mexicans, their brain size is what matters. Many Native American and Arctic groups have large brains but average IQs in the 90s.

        An IQ of 105 is not very high…it’s in the “average” range.
        If there’s a sample where the average IQ is 105 and standard deviation is 0 this means that everyone in the sample has an IQ of 105, which is “average”, not very high.

        If there’s a sample where the average IQ is 98 but the standard deviation is 20 this means the majority of people differ greatly from the average, meaning there could be many IQ 130+ people in that sample.

        So “average” IQ becomes less relevant in reality once it goes into the 90s.

        Career IQ data also confirms many people in technical “high IQ” fields having IQs in the 90s…so in my opinion brain size is more important than IQ (a made up intelligence test).

        IQ-type intelligence is only one aspect of cognition, this explains why many large-brained people don’t have high IQs and why many small-brained individuals have high IQs.

        Like Einstein for instance only had an average-sized brain, he was probably not that intelligent overall (including all levels of cognition) but intelligent in physics and mathematics (one aspect of cognition).

        Brain size has to do with overall intelligence (including cognition that IQ tests would never measure).

        Christopher Langan, among the only human who has scored above 190 on multiple adult IQ tests also has a HUGE brain.

        He has both a high IQ and huge brain.

        Langan’s cranial circumference is 25.5 inches, which using simple calculations that JP Rushton uses means that his brain size is probably 1800 – 2000 cc….super-large!

      2. You also mentioned the East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese), population > 1500 million with high average IQs, but they have very few Nobel prize worthy contributions…so what’s the explanation?

        China has 4 Nobel prizes in science (8 ethnic total), but there’s more than 1350 million people in China…compared to say Norway which has 8 Nobel prizes in science in a population of only 5 million or Switzerland, 20 Nobel prizes in science in a population of only 8 million.

        Africans have a population of around 1000 million but a lower average IQ and more genetic diversity than the Chinese….do they have the same or more super-geniuses than the Chinese?

        So if an ethnic African wins a Nobel prize in science they’ll have only slightly less than China proportionally.

        I only have 2 possible hypotheses as to why the Chinese have so very few Nobel prize worthy contributions:
        – Little variation
        – Brain structure prevents them from making Nobel prize worthy contributions

        I’m not sure which hypothesis is right or closer to the truth, some sources indicate than there is little variation in China (more than 90% of China is Han Chinese) so this would mean few super-geniuses or super-brains.

        My Chinese friends do indeed seem to have large heads, but not super large heads. I’ve seen some American Whites and American Blacks with larger heads than my Chinese friends (females don’t count since they have significantly smaller brains than males).

        Christopher Langan (one of the few humans to score above 190 on adult IQ tests) nears the tip of the maximum brain size for a human (1800 cc – 1900 cc), having an even larger brain than the Neanderthals’.

        I’m wondering if since the Chinese have little variation they would have lots of people with large brains (1400 cc – 1500 cc) but few with super large brains (1700 cc or higher)…is that the explanation?

        There never has been any Chinese or East Asian with a verified adult IQ of 200 or higher, even though there’s more than 1500 million East Asians, has there?

        Claims from East Asians of super high IQs come from childhood IQ scores, which are merely multiplied numbers.

        A childhood IQ of 275 at age 5 is equal to an adult IQ of 86.
        A childhood IQ of 170 at age 10 is equal to an adult IQ of 106.

        Thus childhood IQ scores should be disregarded as nonsense, merely multiplied numbers.

        It doesn’t seem to me like the Chinese have much potential to achieve anything…finding 1 smart or talented person in a population of more than 1350 million is just like someone finding 100 gallons of water in the ocean.

        The Chinese can’t really achieve anything.

        For the other large-brained groups like certain Native American tribes or the Arctic their population size is way too low to know their potential (the Aleuts for instance make up a population of only 17,000-18,000 people).

    2. Another thing to note about Barbados.

      Richard Lynn has been criticized for using low sample sizes for Barbados.

      Other sources indicate that the average SAT score for approximately 300 Barbadian students seeking admission at US Universities was 1300 (which comes to an IQ of around 130 using SAT score conversions).

      “For example, though not representative of the school-age population, it was recently reported that the average SAT score for approximately 300 Barbadian students seeking admission at U.S. universities was 1300 (Barbados Nation, July 16, 1999). What is particularly noteworthy about this score is that the highest achieving students in Barbados traditionally do not take the SAT because they tend to prefer to enroll at the University of West Indies or at universities in Britain and Canada” – A Simple Justice: The Challenge of Small Schools, pg. 79

      People would say but 300 students is a low sample size, but Richard Lynn’s data set for Barbados was a test of 108 9- to 15-year-olds!

      It says it in Lynn’s book for Barbados:
      “Data for a sample of 108 9- to 15-year-olds were collected for the WISCR by Geller, Ramsey, and Forde (1986) around the year of 1984. They obtained an IQ of 82. Because of the 12-year interval between the two years of data collection, this needs to be reduced to 78.” – IQ and the Wealth of Nations, pg. 199

      A sample of 108 people is also very low…so what does this mean for Barbados? High variation?

      Multiple studies show PhD. physicists and full Professors as having among the highest average IQs of any group…since there have been PhD. physicists and full Professors at the top Universities from Barbados this doesn’t fit into a low average IQ for a population of less than 300,000…but it does fit into the claim of high SAT scores for Barbadian students.

      Barbados is still more developed than many other “higher IQ” nations…so what does that tell us? It tells us that either the average IQ data is inaccurate or if it’s really true that Barbados does have a low average IQ it doesn’t matter much for anything.

      Many other higher IQ nations are less developed with more poverty than Barbados…which also fits into a higher average IQ for Barbados.

      But in my opinion brain size matters more than IQ. Einstein’s brain was smaller than many Africans (only 1230 cc according to many sources).

      This means Einstein was overall not intelligent, he was intelligent in one aspect of cognition (physics), but probably lacked other cognitive abilities.

      It’s possible to have a small brain and have a lot of your cognition go towards IQ-type intelligence as IQ tests only measure one aspect of cognition.

      Think of a computer with less memory and worse hardware but running software to accomplish one task.

  31. Regardless of what the IQ tests show in my opinion brain size matters more for survival because natural selection tells us so.

    Brain size also matters more because it’s physically real whereas IQ is not (has no physical existence).

    IQ tests only measure one aspect of cognition and is a man-made test.
    No man-made test can possibly be as accurate as natural selection or measure all levels of cognition.

    Natural selection favors a larger brain for survival, this means that larger-brained individuals are better at survival regardless of their IQ.

    Einstein’s brain was small (only 1230 cc), smaller than many Africans. This means according to natural selection if we went out in the wild to survive with no technology or writing Einstein wouldn’t survive as well as larger-brained individuals (he lacks the cognition).

    Intelligence is subjective, but who’s more “intelligent” in terms of survival?
    It doesn’t seem like IQ-type intelligence is particularly useful for survival.

    If we’re going out in the wild to survive without modern technology or writing how much does an IQ above the average range (90-109) or even slightly below average (80-89) really help you in terms of survival?

    You would need cognitive abilities connected to survival, not necessarily “IQ-type” intelligence.

    There are all types of cognitive abilities connected to survival that IQ tests wouldn’t measure like memory, hand-eye coordination, etc…

    The large-brained Native American, African, and Arctic tribes had better cognition for survival than the smaller-brained groups regardless of their IQ.

    Large-brained individuals are better at survival regardless of their IQ.

    In modern times natural selection works differently because of the existence of writing and technology.

    People might laugh at the large-brained Native American tribes, but they survived, many Native American tribes had life expectancies as high as or higher than the Greeks, Romans, and other civilizations. They developed survival techniques that really worked for basic survival…so they survived.

    We see the smaller-brained groups not surviving well regardless of their IQ as well.
    Like for instance the Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads but high average IQs…but how well are they surviving? Many are still living in third world conditions.

    It’s because brain size is for survival, not IQ…that’s what natural selection tells us.

    Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not IQ-puzzles or whatever so it makes sense that natural selection favors a larger brain and other cognitive abilities over IQ.

    If you can’t use your cognition in connection to survival then it’s useless in natural selection terms…natural selection wouldn’t favor it.

    Natural selection favors physical traits, high birth rates, and cognitive abilities connected to survival, but not necessarily a high IQ.

    James Clerk Maxwell might have been one of the smartest humans in history, but he died at age 48 of abdominal cancer…having a high IQ didn’t help him survive longer because physical traits matter more than IQ in terms of survival.

    There are lots of lower IQ individuals who lived longer than James Clerk Maxwell, or John von Neumann or other geniuses….so what use was it to have a higher IQ and still die young compared to a lower IQ individual who achieved nothing in life but had a happier longer-lived life?

    The majority of species in the world have physical traits that help them survive and not much intelligence because physical traits matters more for survival than intelligence alone.

    Neanderthals were smarter than modern day humans as well if you go by “survival intelligence” rather than made up subjective views of intelligence. Surviving in the conditions that the Neanderthals did without modern technology and writing would be really hard for modern day humans (who have smaller brains than the Neanderthals).

    There are some people that have both high IQs and large brains like Langan, who’s brain size is at least 1800 cc (off the charts nearing the maximum for a human) and even larger than the Neanderthals’.

    Because IQ is just a made up test and because of neurogenesis I’m pretty sure that there are ways to condition people to have higher IQs…but I don’t think society should focus on IQ more than brain size since natural selection is more accurate than IQ.

    What we have to do is focus on raising the brain size, which can be done with proper nutrition and possibly other methods.

    Proper nutrition also would increase height.

    We have to think about things in terms of survival and living conditions, not in terms of “IQ” or other subjective views on intelligence….so brain size matters more than IQ.

  32. I hope I can encourage people to value living conditions and survival more than IQ.

    Natural selection clearly tells us that a larger brain is better for survival regardless of the IQ!
    Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival…not IQ-puzzles or whatever.

    Natural selection is a test of survival, not IQ!

    The reason why the brain size and IQ data doesn’t match in perfectly is because IQ tests can’t measure all levels of cognition or be as accurate as natural selection, it’s just a made up test.

    Brain size matters more for survival, the data is very clear on this. So we should focus on increasing the brain size with non-genetic factors that influence brain size like nutrition.

    A small-brained person with a high IQ might lack visual memory, be clumsy, lack hand-eye coordination, be forgetful, make mistakes, and lack all types of cognitive abilities that would never be measured on an IQ test!

    A large-brained person with an average or slightly below average IQ might have good visual memory, hand-eye coordination, not be clumsy, etc…and it wouldn’t be measured on an IQ test!

    Descendants of the Wampanoag tribe (a large-brained Native American tribe that taught the settlers a lot) claim that they always had food and never experienced any famine.

    IQ-type intelligence is only one type of intelligence.

    It doesn’t seem like an adult IQ of 87 or higher is useful for anything in terms of brute survival.

    An adult IQ of 87 means you’re intelligent enough to get like all A’s in 8th grade middle school classes…seems like more than enough IQ-type intelligence for survival.

    I know a female (small-brained) who has a PhD. in physics but is struggling to find a job, and get food, water, and shelter.

    I know a male (large-brained) who dropped out of high school, doesn’t seem very IQ-type intelligent, but has a good job, and always has food, water, and shelter.

    Living conditions and survival are more important to me than IQ.

    The people in Barbados (a supposedly low IQ nation, still debatable) are living much better than people in many other high IQ nations…so how does it matter?

    Brain size is really real.
    Survival is really real.
    Living conditions are really real.
    Natural selection is really real.
    IQ-type intelligence isn’t physically real, it doesn’t exist in reality!

    Nutrition while growing up strongly influences brain development and height, so we can increase brain size by encouraging children to get proper nutrition. Being a little bit fat growing up would be better than being a little bit too skinny because once you’re grown up and stop growing there’s not much you can do about your brain size and height, but if you’re fat you can just lose weight.

    1. ”IQ-type intelligence is only one type of intelligence.”

      Prove it.

      All human beings are very smart, of course, despising those who have ”mental differences”, aff, i hate euphemisms when they are applyed in a wrong way, but i love them when they are applyed in a right way, i mean, for protect vulnerable people who have not ANY guilty for its situation.

      Called a person with mental severe deficits as retard is exactly as if you call yourself as retard. Adjectives is losing its validity.

      Of course there is a hierarchy starting by iq-perspective, i mean, some people do well cognitive tests and it express partial to predominantly their intelects. But it don’t argue against cognitive diversity. It’s not a counter argument. Socio-economic-cultural correlations with iq don’t argue against cognitive diversity or multiple intelligence.

      I don’t understand why people can’t accept multiple intelligence theory WITH iq. Only explicitly visible problem about him is not technical or scientific but political, because ”she” has been used exactly to refute iq (racial differences).

      intelligence is a very generalized concept. Almost lives could be treated as smart. What separate humanity from other species is not intelligence, but wisdom, the singular manifestation of human intellect, the capacity for reflective thinking, thinking about ( no non-human species can do it), govern themselves and creativity, the first spark of human phenomenon.

  33. The climate and brain size data clearly show us that brain size is more important for survival.

    We don’t see any small-brained ethnic groups with high IQs surviving well in the arctic, why not? If IQ was so special we would expect to see that.

    On the other hand we do see some ethnic groups with large brains surviving in harsh climates with average or slightly below average level IQs.

    This leads me to believe that IQ is just a made up test and not as important as many IQ fans believe.

    So if we’re using natural selection as opposed to IQ testing (since in my opinion natural selection is more accurate than IQ testing) we would conclude that:
    – A larger brain makes you more likely to survive than a smaller brain regardless of the IQ
    – After IQ goes into the high 80s/low 90s it’s not useful for anything (in terms of survival)

    An adult IQ in the high 80s/low 90s is like 8th grade/9th grade level education…seems like more than enough intelligence and education needed.

    Even in modern times in many technical fields if you can do 8th grade/9th grade level coursework it would be enough.

    So it seems what natural selection is telling us is true…how many real-world applications does an education above 8th grade/9th grade really have?

    After college when I got a good job and a high income I realized how I used so few things that I learned in college.

    Here’s places where the IQ testing fails:
    – Vietnam and North Korea have high average IQs, but they have worse living conditions and hunger levels than many African countries
    – Hispanic Americans have the 2nd highest life expectancy in the US, but Hispanics have a low income, education level, and a low average IQ

    The reason why Hispanic Americans have a higher life expectancy than American Whites even though American Whites have a higher IQ, income, and education level is because you don’t need a high IQ for survival, you need food, water, and shelter for survival, and survival has a lot to do with things outside of IQ.

    I wonder what the brain size of the average Hispanic American is.

    Studies show that proper nutrition, physical exercise, and good sleeping habits work to prevent or well-treat most negative conditions as well as or even better than most modern day medicine!

    What’s going to happen in the future if people keep focusing on IQ more than brain size is that we might end up with a bunch of small-brained people with high IQs who can’t survive.

    There’s probably going to be a food crisis in the 2030s-2050s…if a food crisis does breakout and you can’t get food by just going to a store or restaurant would you be able to survive? How much would having a high IQ or a PhD or Master’s Degree in a technical field really help you?

    Every once in a while I hear stories about people with PhDs and Master’s Degrees going homeless…because you don’t need a PhD or Master’s Degree for survival, you need food, water, and shelter for survival. I don’t hear any stories about farmers going homeless because farmers produce food.

    Maybe I should’ve become a farmer or majored in agricultural science.

    Because of capitalism anyone with money can get food, but that capitalist form of government wasn’t always there.

    The brain size data also shows us that women have significantly smaller brains than men. Maybe it would be better if in the future women didn’t have the same rights as men.

    I saw on a reality show once an above averaged IQ small-brained female cutting up meat who made a mistake and cut her finger badly. Such things (mistakes made while cutting up meat, hand-eye coordination) would never be measured on IQ tests even though they matter a lot for survival.

    Brain size is really real and for survival.

    Even some gorillas have brains as large as many females (around 700-800 cc)!

    Aristotle said that “Women are defective by nature”…maybe Aristotle was right but for the wrong reasons.

    Human brain sizes range from around 700 cc – 2200 cc. It seems that nutrition has a really big effect on brain size.

  34. Here’s the thing. Head size, as opposed to brain size, has a much lower correlation to IQ. From what I’ve heard, head size only correlates about 0.1-0.2 while brain size is 0.3-0.4 for IQ.

    This is due to the thickness of the skull. People from cold regions have thicker and larger skulls to insulate against the cold. Warmer climates don’t need this so much. And last thing I heard, white European men have a brain size of around 1270 cm^3, roughly on par with blacks I believe, even if their head may be a little larger. Even then skull morphology changes extremely fast and is extremely plastic.

    1. Really? I’m referring to your cvomparison of skulls between White Europeans and Black Africans.
      I think it makes more sense if you’re referring to AMERICAN Whites and Blacks because Robert actually has data that points towards the skulls becoming more and more similar. He’s claims it’s IQ selection, but others claim its due to nutrition plus white admixture. I’m honestly leaning towards Rob’s calculation because IQ selection is far more widespread know that U.S Blacks have White IQ in their frequency and I happen to know that Black women often prefer brown- to light skin blacks compared to dark skin ones, so it’s likely that due to preferring these progressive features caused IQ rises.

      Plus the amount of Admixture plus nutrition from a hard HBD perspective doesn’t add up that much, though I mainly mean the Admixture aspect rather than the Nutrition which does seem like a more likely culprit.

    2. There’s head size, brain size, and brain weight, but natural selection seems to favor a larger brain regardless of the IQ.

      According to JP Rushton “The three populations under consideration have mean absolute cranial capacities of African Americans (1356 cm3), European Americans (1371 cm3), and East Asian Americans (1383 cm3).” –

      African Americans have medium-large brains, most African Americans are admixed with Native American and White.

      Other studies claim that Caucasoids have larger brains than Mongoloids –'s_Mongoloid-Caucasoid_differences_in_brain_size

      Most mongoloid regions aren’t in the Arctic…in Europe and North America there are many Arctic regions and natural selection tells us that a larger brain is always preferred in the Arctic regions.

      Other brain size data indicates that Italians, Swiss, Germans, and other European populations have brains as large as the Chinese (on average).

      Genetic studies on the Han Chinese (around 90% of China is Han Chinese) shows very little genetic variation between Han Chinese populations, much less genetic variation than there is in Europe (,, they are homogeneous.

      Europe has more genetic variation than China, so they have more super-smart and super-dumb people than China. China has so little genetic variation that they have few super smart people and few super dumb people, but many people with average-level intelligence.

      Christopher Langan has one of the highest adult IQs and largest brain sizes ever in human history, but there never has been any ethnic Chinese with a tested adult IQ of 190 or higher.

      The little genetic variation in China may explain why China has only 5 Nobel prizes in science in a population of more than 1350 million and Indians having around 4 times as much genetic variation as Europeans may explain why India has around the same amount of Nobel prizes in science as China.

      Africans have the most genetic diversity, this would mean much variation in brain size, IQ, and cognitive abilities in general among Africans. I wonder if this means that Africans would have many super-geniuses if they were more developed, maybe around the same or a higher number of super-geniuses than China.

      Non-genetic factors like nutrition have a big influence on brain size, this means that brain size (and height) can vary greatly in populations that are genetically very close (like the same family).

      Since nutrition has a big impact on brain size this means the brain size data in third world or developing countries doesn’t reflect the genetic potential of the populations.

      A brain size of 1400-1500 cc might sound large, but it’s not that large since the maximum human brain size is like 2200-2300 cc.

      A childhood IQ of 100 at age 13 = adult IQ of 81.25
      A childhood IQ of 100 at age 14 = adult IQ of 87.5
      A childhood IQ of 100 at age 15 = adult IQ of 93.75

      So this means once IQ goes into the 80s-90s it’s not really relevant just like natural selection tells us. Someone with an adult IQ of 87 would be able to get As and Bs in 9th grade level math, reading, English, and science courses, and you wouldn’t be able to tell in your perception how “IQ-type” smart they are since an IQ above the high 80s/low 90s has few real-world applications.

      Other types of cognition like hand-eye coordination, memory, and other things the brain does connected to survival would be more important than IQ-type intelligence once IQ goes into the 80s/90s just like natural selection tells us.

      When we look at the life expectancy data we also see that IQ doesn’t matter for life expectancy once IQ goes into the high 80s/low 90s, Hispanics have a higher life expectancy than American Whites with a lower income, IQ, and education level.

      Hispanics have an average IQ in the high 80s/low 90s (the same level that natural selection seems to favor).

      Other studies show that an IQ too high is bad for survival (lower birthrates, social awkwardness), just like an IQ too low is. So natural selection favors an IQ not too high and not too low.

      In some states American Hispanics have a life expectancy nearly 10 years higher than American Whites.

  35. Proper head size / iq chart seems to prove that larger the heads, smarter the nation. Correlation is statistically significant, although well below 1.

  36. Your data still shows a trend toward larger heads associated with higher IQ. I don’t think anyone ever argued that head size was the sole determinant of IQ.

  37. Do you know of any solid IQ tests on Mongolians? There was one done by Richard Lynn on Mongolian children in China’s Inner Mongolia.

    The result was, Mongolian children had 5 points higher visiospatial IQ, but 10 points lower verbal IQ than the Han Chinese. Since Mongols in China have to learn 2 languages at once, and they took the test in Mongolian rather than Chinese, I would assume their verbal IQ should be lower than Han Chinese due to having less expertise in one particular language.
    For example, not clearly understanding the questions to begin with, or seeing unfamiliar words may significantly bring down their verbal IQ scores.

    For “Northern Chinese” what ethnic groups do you mean? And where did you find the data?


    As you can see, Mongolians have significantly larger heads than other Asians.

      1. Sorry for the late response. So 10 points lower verbal but 5 points higher visuospatial means, Mongolian children scored 5 points lower than the Han Chinese children.

        It’s quite interesting. Mongolians having the largest cranial capacity, but also possibly the highest visuospatial IQ? East Asians are known to have high visuospatial IQ, but Mongolian children have 5 points higher.

        1. How about we have the Mongolians, East Asians, Maori, etc… each devise an IQ test to give to others to see if they do better or worse. The IQ test was probably made by Jews/Westerners so maybe we have “home field” advantage.

  38. As you can see, in the Americas, there is no good evidence whatsoever for head size and IQ. I am not aware that Amerindian IQ varies in the Americas. The average is apparently 87 across the continent. If anyone can show me that it varies by latitude, please do.

    A buddy and I are going to estimate IQ scores for old MesoAmericans and the like. We’ll talk about this as well.

  39. I’ve actually seen an alien-shaped head on a White woman. This woman was very smart. She looks like she got two scoops of brain while most people just got one. This oversized brain may be the next step in evolution.

    1. You know where the word egghead came from? Look at a photo of the physicists who worked on the original atom bomb in Albuquerque. A lot of them are balding. But look at how tall those foreheads are. Yep, brainy are literally eggheads due to their tall foreheads.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)