Why are spics so low IQ if they evolved from asians?

why are spics so low IQ if they evolved from asians?
I think asians evolved from spics and not the other way around

Attached: dumbpoorspics.jpg (1600x1200, 348K)

Native Americans split from Asians 12,000 years ago at the latest, which is plenty of time to devolve in intelligence considering that all non-blacks split from Africans around 60,000 years ago.

Spics look most like southeast jungle asians though, and they are also mud hut tier even to this day

they more in common with central asians though

Devolution, likely a result of adaptation to warmer climate. The same is true of the aboriginals.

(Australoids)

south of the equator = life on easy mode until you get invaded by northerners

why do you think eskimos have a low IQ (average 90) even if they are from the cold?

IQ has little to do with race. The plains and deserts of asia are much more habitable and have more potential for growth than the jungles of the americas. This is why europe and asia are developed while africa and south america remain shitholes. People coming from shitholes are poorer and therefore end up dumber due to bad education.

I think temperate climates are actually the ideal evolutionary grounds for intelligence. Cold winters that require planning and cooperation, but warm summers that sustain agricultural output and population density which leads to complex social organization on a large scale.

yeah chinks have really only had civilization for like 3k years we were all monkey cavemen before that

eskimos live in such a cold climate they can't even build log cabins unlike scandinavians

now, there's a bunch of spics. Mayans were pretty much top tier, followed by incans and aztecs but euroblood fucked them up
look at the phillipines
iberian blood is poison

Too much of their brainpower is dedicated to not freezing their asses off

I guarantee you that it is easier for prehistoric people to survive in the American tropics than in the Central Asian steppes.

That's not how evolution works. It's about area and climate, not time so much. One lived in a less wintery area is the key to the puzzle. Some cultures provide only the conservative to survive, conservative enough to outlast a winter as an example. For jews they survived slavery in a desert for thousands of years. You can't be stupid and live through conservative climates and areas. Well, you can be, but pros and cons. You can be a vicious asshole to make up for lack of conservation. The vicious behavior can make idiots fall in line to behave efficiently without an efficient mindset of their own, a social construct.

It's complicated.

Iraq back when called Sumeria invented it's own farming back around 5000 years ago but ok kid.

Don't you dare completely destroy his temperature argument! He's from Jow Forums, you know! Don't make him spam you with infographics!

NE asians have a distant white ancestor.

Survival isn't the issue, the issue is the ability to form complex societies. Once asians moved past central asia to the east they could develop civilizations like china and japan. They also had animals that weren't retarded and could work.

Having no seasons at all is just as bad as sitting in Africa. Too harsh. All work and no play makes the racist a very dull goy.

Not denying that, but the post I was replying to specifically mentioned habitability. Less habitable climates do tend to encourage greater cooperation for survival, which in turn leads to greater social complexity if agricultural conditions are right. But yes, slave animals are important too.