Yes because hot and cold climates outside of temperature are otherwise basically equal. There’s much better critiques of the cold winters theory. I’m not sure you can even call that a critique.
> Really, the more you think about that theory, the dumber it gets
Well, you could start by revisiting what cold climates are like and how they differ from warm ones.
You sure could! Why wouldn't you? Do you reject the concept of evolution via natural selection in all species or only humans?
It would actually be quite the story if the races were somehow identical in all of these traits.
Both of these positions are untestable. One, however, is extremely likely while the other would be a miracle even in the wildest fantasies of the wokest progressive.
How would you explain how geographically distant groups in radically different conditions could, over millennia, converge on all of the exact same non-visible traits without even minor variations? I truly can't imagine a way that this would be possible aside from the infinitesimally unlikely product of completely random chance.
Some may excel in some areas, some in others, some may generally be good at more things than others. That is entirely natural and expected.
I think it is reductionist in the extreme to say "Europeans smarter because Winter cold". I never said that. I would say that it's a reasonable explanation for some of the aggregate behavioural differences we can observe (both "good" and "bad") between Danes and Congolese, for example.
These are difficult to quantify, but in every attempt we seem to find that there are differences evident between disparate ethnic groups. IQ is the most commonly discussed one, while we also have statistics around criminality, sexual behaviours, family structure, academic achievement, income and wealth, addiction, mental illness, etc.
So much of this involves the brain - a physical organ with structure largely determined by genetics. We can physically observe the varying size and shape of the brain and its regions among different groups. There are various mental and intellectual conditions that we know affect certain ethnicities at higher rates than others. Why wouldn't there be myriad tiny variations that influence behaviours and potentials, to varying extents? Why wouldn't you assume that? How is it that you are so sure that everything we can't see inside this black box must magically be identical, even as so much that we can observe is not?
I, frankly, don't know what one stands to gain by denying these differences. It's genuinely confusing and irrational behaviour to me.
Whatever the rest of these arguments are, I'm not invested enough in this thread to drag this out.
Cold winters. Tell it to the Abbasids! I guess some of them had kind of cold winters sometimes? Maybe that explains it.
You're so caught up on "the cold winter theory". I'm telling you that you can completely let it go. It's one (pretty good) theory to explain one selection pressure that may have contributed to some of the aggregate divergence we see across races.
Even if you started with two seperate genetically-identical groups in identical environments, over enough generations you would expect at least some variation to emerge due to random chance (accidental deaths, mate selection, DNA recombination, cultural practices, etc). That is the point I would like you to take away from this exchange.