I made a giant rant the other day and decided not post. Instead I'm going to invalidate SR's source and put that argument to rest hopefully. This post turned into a monster.
SR's original source:
Notice that the argument the source presents is invalidated by the data the source presents.
Premise: There is scientific proof that the average temperature of climates have a causal relationship with IQ. This relationship is inverse. The higher the average temperature the lower the IQ and vice versa.
Assuming this is true the data should reflect it. There were 111 countries surveyed and if the claim is true, disregarding an outlier or two, the hottest countries should have the lowest IQs and the coldest countries the highest.
Averages for the whole data set. The math I'm doing is verifiable with high school mathematics, please run your own numbers if you don't believe me.
The average global temperature of all the countries from which data was gathered is ~ 22.6C
Calculation: Add up all the average temperatures and divide by the number of countries. 2511.5C / 111 ~ 22.6C (I'm not explaining this everytime, I have faith you know how take averages.)
The average global IQ = 87.16
Calutlation: 9675IQ / 111 = 87.16
The average global education expenditures per capita (EEPC) ~ 536.68$
56,888$ / 106 ~ 536.68$ (excluding the countries where data was not gathered Taiwan, North Korea, Iraq, Nigeria and Bosnia and Herzegovina.)
The author should not have had included the countries where data on EEPC was not collected in the study because any analysis comparing conclusions drawn from the EEPC will now have an unknown error when compared to average temperature or IQ. Error count = 1
Let's start by sorting the data by IQ from highest IQ to lowest IQ.
A few things jump out that call the premise into question.
The the top 3 countries with the highest IQ all have hot climates
X) = Rank
1) Singapore, IQ = 108, average temp = 31.5C
2) Hong Kong, IQ = 108, average temp = 26.1C
3) Taiwan, IQ = 106, average temp = 27.1C
Macao also comes into the the number 10 position at an IQ of 101 and an average temperature of 25.8 C
That places 4 out of 10 of the highest IQ countries in a hot climate. In the case of Singapore significantly hotter coming in at 8.9C hotter than average. Moreover the coldest countries in the top 25 highest IQ countries aren't even in the top ten.
13) Canada, IQ = 101, average temp = 7.4C
12) Finland, IQ = 101, average temp = 8.0C
11) Iceland, IQ = 101, average temp = 7.9C
24) Estonia, IQ = 99, average temp = 10.0C
Considering that the temperature difference is so far below the average for these countries ranging from 12.6C - 15.2C. The colder countries in question should have higher IQs than the hotter countries which are ranked higher. Inconsistencies like this appear throughout the whole data set. Some choice examples are the cold but low IQ Bosnia and Herzegovina with a rank of 83), IQ of 82 and temp of 18.5C. In contrast Vietnam ranked 42) is hot at 29.2C but has a high IQ of 94.
These aren't outliers that can be explained away as statistical noise because of how contradictory the data within the top 25 countries ranked by IQ is. The significantly colder European countries mentioned should have outperformed the significantly hotter Asian ones, yet they don't. Furthermore, notice that when sorted by average temperature from lowest to highest how disconnected the IQ based ranks become compared to the temperature. I encourage you to look at the whole chart yourself on the source's website. I'm going to focus on a particularly problematic portion of the data set below to further examine this inconsistency. Below are the hot countries.
Notice how all of the countries listed are above the average global temperature. Now notice how their ranks do not correspond with the premise's claim that the hotter countries should have lower average IQs. They should be following a mostly linear progression trending towards downward trending IQs. Excluding a few outliers nearly all of these countries should have low average IQs.
Out of the 62 countries with above average temperatures 15 have an average IQ higher than or equal to 87. 24.19% of the countries in question contradict the premise, that means the premise doesn't hold for nearly 1 out of every 4 cases! If some biological law dictating that hotter climates mandates lower IQs were at play, it should be observable in nearly all of the countries where data was collected. The error here is far too large to claim scientific authority, even if there were sound logic present one website cannot claim scientific authority in the same way a highly tested theory like general relativity can. And given the potential for abuse with any idea that makes claims on intelligence, extraordinary standards are required here.
At least with hot countries the premise doesn't hold. Error Count = 2 This is already enough to dismantle the premise but let's keep going.
Now lets look at the cold countries.
Out of the 49 cold countries 47 have an IQ higher or equal to 87. That's ~ 95.91%. A 4.09% divergence isn't too bad in social science. So, at least with cold countries the premise seems to hold. Why? The premise is already proven false, temperature has no correlation, let alone a causal relationship with IQ. If it did, the data from the hot countries would have reflected that. What alternative explanation might be present?
Let's look at the data for the cold countries again. Notice that out of the 47 cold countries where data is available (no North Korea or Bosnia and Herzegovina) 23 have a higher EEPC than average (536.68$) meaning they spend more on education. That's ~ 48.94%. This doesn't quite yield an explanation either given that nearly half the countries have lower education spending per capita than average. There is one statistic that the source conveniently doesn't track that might show a clearer picture, the human development index (HDI)
HDI statistics from a reputable source, the United Nations Development Programme.
According to HDI standards any country with an HDI higher than or equal to 0.7 is considered to have a high level of human development.
Out of the 48 cold countries were data is available (no North Korea) 48 have a high HDI. That's 100%!
This means that low IQs are correlated with low human development. Which is to say that life expectancy, years of schooling and income may all play a role in a person's IQ. In short, poverty is the problem, not temperature. I also point out that trying to falsely claim temperature is the source of low IQs conveniently paints non-european nations as stupid seeing that the majority of the hotter nations are non-European. This only contributes to conspiratorial and racist rhetoric. Whereas there are developed non-European countries and analysis based on HDI does not face this problem. In addition the HDI based analysis is true whereas the temperature argument is fallacious.
The premise is wrong, the data does not support it.
Temperature does not have any correlation with IQ.
The data is presented badly due to omitting easily accessible statistics that contradict the sources claim. It is unethical and unscientific to ignore data just because it contradicts one's opinion, this is flatly dishonest. There's also bad procedure at work from using countries where data could not be gathered in the premises analysis which in its own right is a bad idea if one wants to purport total scientific authority by boisterously claiming as the source does in the first paragraph, "Often surprisingly, but scientifically proven, a warmer climate has a markedly bad influence on the intelligence quotient."
All the work I just did should have been done by the source's writer first and honestly presented. The website tries to pass itself off as scientific by presenting numbers and looking professional, but fails to uphold even the most basic scientific standard. Science =/= pretty numbers do stuff. There's much more rigor and reasoning involved than that.
Finally, SR you can't say "I realize that some people hate hearing this and wish it would just go away but it may well be the truth. Should we really ignore reality? Or work to fix reality with science? It seems to me that evolution forced people in colder climate to have higher iq's to survive." when your claim is demonstrably false. Your claim is not backed by science. Moreover, even if it was how do you jump from "there are people with low IQs" to "people with low IQs should be exterminated through eugenics?" There's just such a breakdown in reasoning here, even if the study were true it has nothing to say about what should ethically be done, if anything. I encourage you to go back to the drawing board, learn what the scientific method means, why people think it's ethically good, and brush up on some skills. Anyone with a high school understanding of statistics could look at that source just like I did and see why it's problamatic. The statistics just stood out as wrong in relation to the premise. It took a while for me to reason out why they were wrong sure, but just looking at that data set had my intuition going that something was amiss.