Home » Ability to Delay Gratification » Differential K Theory, GFP, and the Evolution of Conscientousness

Differential K Theory, GFP, and the Evolution of Conscientousness

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 290 other subscribers

Follow me on Twitter


 1400 words


There is a link between higher IQ and higher ability to be more conscientiousness, which is then linked to the GFP or General Factor of Personality. Two meta-factors were identified beyond the Big Five Personality Traits and were described as ‘Plasticity’ and ‘Stability’ (Deyoung et al, 2002). To quote from the paper:

Stability subsumes Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (the reverse of
Neuroticism), and Agreeableness, and refers to the extent to which
an individual is consistent in motivation, mood, and social interac-
tions. Plasticity encompasses Extraversion and Openness to experi-
ence, and refers to the extent to which a person actively searches
for new and rewarding experiences, both intellectual and social.

Why did this evolve, especially so closely with high intellect? It evolved due to conscientiousness, which is defined as being thorough, careful, and vigilant.That, coincidentally enough, being needed to survive the harsh winters of Northern Europe and Siberia. Higher conscientiousness was is also another reason for the formation of European societies. With being able to be more conscientious, this, along with genetic pacification, is yet another cause for the cucking of Europe.

When our ancestors trekked out of Africa and into Siberia and Northern Europe, they needed differing abilities than those peoples who stayed in the more tropic climates. Those in the tropics, for the most part, could just lounge around all day. With food being readily available, there was really no pressing need to “save” or “partition” their findings (as Africa is full of mostly a hunter-gatherer societies). Conversely, in Europe and Asia, with harsh conditions in regards to their environment, which made food less plentiful than in the tropics, this meant that more cooperation was needed. Due to more cooperation being needed to survive, planning ahead (abstract thought) evolved to better help cope with the harsh environment.

The aforementioned factors in Europe and Asia then led to the higher rates of altruism seen today. Ancient Europeans needed to be thorough, vigilant and careful. Whether they needed to be careful with food storage, how much to eat, whether or not to help someone, etc, it’s clear that conscientiousness evolved with higher intelligence. Since higher intelligence is correlated with those three things involving conscientiousness, they evolved hand in hand, as selection only selects for good traits and discards the ones that aren’t useful.

These two environments that the three races evolved in then set the stage for what’s going on today. With Africans’ lack of conscientiousness, this leads to them not being vigilant, careful or thorough. This can be seen with how sloppy they are when they commit crimes. Their ancestral environment wasn’t conducive to conscientiousness, and in turn, higher IQ, so they evolved without the need of conscientiousness, as their societies (for what they are), function ‘well’ in their perception. This is yet another reason why that we cannot live together. Differing evolutionary strategies lead to these causes, yet we still think we can acclimate some peoples into society when their biology says otherwise.

JP Rushton proposed that the GFP (General Factor of Personality) and IQ were linked. It was found that the correlation between the GFP and IQ was -.23. The higher the score, the higher the individual scores on the GFP. He noted that the correlation is so low, possibly due to the restricted range of the sample. Rushton provided an argument for the evolutionary process of cognitive ability and personality evolution. This is clear evidence of the GFP and IQ evolving hand-in-hand.

Lacking a high IQ, and therefore, lack of g, Africans (as well as other colored peoples), on average, have lower g and therefore lower conscientiousness, which then is a huge cause for crime. Increases criminality has been correlated, like I’ve said here before, to a lower verbal intelligence. Though this higher IQ and higher GFP is being taken advantage of. Ever since that fateful day in 1964, white pathological altruism has been taken advantage of. Those with lower conscientiousness know they can take advantage of those with higher IQ and higher conscientiousness as altruism is correlated highly with IQ and conscientiousness.

There is an altruistic personality; the altruist has a high IQ, is conscientious, and altruistic. Those on the opposite end of the spectrum, however, take advantage of that and this can be seen with the political climate around the world in regards to other races’ feelings towards whites.Conversely, those who are r-selected and have a low IQ and GFP tend to be more hostile and commit acts of aggression. This multiculturalism due to the altruistic personality on a large scale is one of the reasons for the mass immigration into Western societies. People, as a whole, become collectively altruistic. Then, those lower IQ, lower GFP, r-selected people then take advantage of the more altruistic people. They then turn into a parasitic entity, sucking the host dry before moving on to their next victim.

This is where a high GFP does not work, in multicultural societies. Of course, this is also due to ethnic dissimilarity, but the other thing I brought up along with that ethnic dissimilarity are all of the negative effects of those that are r selected, which, in their own societies is ‘fine’, but to who are K-selected and have complex societies, those behaviors are archaic.

There is a high correlation between low IQ, low conscientiousness, archaic actions, lack of abstract thought, and lack of society building. We know that those with lower IQs commit more crime on average than those with higher IQs.

This is why allowing non-Western people who are abnormal to our societies  is a bad move, since they don’t share the same evolutionary track, and therefore, due to differing selections due to evolution, evolved differing behaviors to better adapt to the climate, environment, and surroundings.

Since skin color and IQ correlate at -.92, meaning the darker the skin the lower the IQ and vice versa, this is yet another great assessor on whether an individual has a high IQ, and is, therefore, conscientious. This is due to, as I alluded to earlier, the environment in sub-Saharan Africa being conducive to lack of ability to delay gratification. Due to that, we can infer, on average, whether someone will be conscientious or not. Since their ability to delay gratification is impeded due to certain evolutionary pressures not put on Asians and Europeans, they will, therefore, be less conscientious, which is a crucial building block in maintaining a successful society.

To quote Templer from his memorial paper dedicated to Rushton on the different correlates with skin color and different environments/effects:

The research of Templer and Arikawa (2006) supports Rushton’s contention that higher intelligence develops in colder climates. They used 129 countries with primarily indigenous populations (Asia, Africa, and Europe) and correlated culture fair IQ (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002) with temperature. In addition to temperature, Templer and Arikawa used skin color provided by an anthropology book (Biasutti, 1967). IQ correlated .92 with darker skin color, .76 with winter highs, .66 with winter lows, and .63 with per capita income. Previous research by Meisenberg (2004) reported a correlation of .89 between skin reflectance and IQ in a similar study. Templer (2010b) found a correlation of .96 between skin color measure used by the Templer and Arikawa and the one by Meisenberg’s skin reflectance. Because both measures were independently determined using different methodology, they both can be regarded as highly valid measures of skin color.

The cause of these two variables being correlated is evolution. They paired well with each other, so over tens of thousands of  years, they got selected for with each other and persisted to today. Since we have modern societies and are much more civil (some of us), we can better see these differences in personality as well as behavior. There are This General Factor of Personality was able to evolve due to evolution in cold climates. The altered intelligence, which then altered personality. This r/K Life History Theory of Rushton’s blend’s beautifully with the GFP and intelligence. Evolution in cold climates along with genetic isolation caused differing evolutionary trajectories for each race/ethnicity which led to differences in crime, IQ, socioeconomic statussexual maturitycultures, and so on. There are clear genetic differences brought on by the environment (due to evolution), which leads to  differing societies based on differing evolutionary trajectories. Conscientiousness and intelligence, the whole General Factor of Personality, evolved in Northern populations since it was more beneficial in that environment, and to survive, this is what done to adapt to the environment through natural selection, which then led to racial differences.



  1. Yakov says:

    Eskimos and Siberia tribes should have a high IQ, but they don’t. Why?


    • RaceRealist says:

      This is explained by population size. In smaller populations, there is less of a chance for mutations to develop that lead to higher IQ. This is one reason why Europeans and East Asians have higher IQs, evolving in colder climates as well as having a higher population. This is why, for instance, the Inuit have the same average brain size as East Asians, yet only have an IQ of 91. Here is a Rushton quote from his review of Lynn’s book:

      Lynn also notes some anomalies in the cold winter theory of intelligence. The most striking: the Inuit, exposed to the coldest winter temperatures, have a brain size equal to East Asians, and yet have an average IQ of only 91. To explain this anomaly, Lynn proposes that additional genetic processes are important—such as population size. The larger the network of co-operating and competing population groups (“demes”), the faster any mutations for advantageous alleles can spread. So large landmass groups like East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than isolated hunter-gatherer groups like the Inuit.

      Winters Are Good For Your Genes: Lynn Book Finds World Average IQ 90, Declining From North To South

      They also have a higher visio-spatial IQ. People have marveled at their ability to remember their location. They can easily navigate the Arctic and find where they need to go. The same with the Yup’ik Alaskans. Here are two quotes from my article Refuting Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence:

      He cites a study done on a Yup’ik Alaskan community, in which he says that differing peoples will have differing academic and practical skills.

      He shows a question from that test, which is similar to the one I have shown above about the Yup’ik villagers. He says that the point is, is what’s hard is in the context of how you grew up. That those who grew up in rural areas would know the answer to the question in comparison to those from urban areas. They found that urban students outperformed Yup’ik students on academic tests. But Yup’ik children outscored urban children on the Yup’ik intelligence test. The urban kids do better on the academic tests, where the Yup’ik kids do better on the practical intelligence tests. He says you have to know certain things for your certain environment you’re in.

      The findings were that academic intelligence modestly predicted adaptive skills but not hunting skills in the urban and rural communities. On the other hand, practical intelligence modestly predicted adaptive skills and moderately predicted hunting skills in the rural communities but not the urban ones.

      He says the Yup’ik kids know how to get from point A to point B that might be 100 miles away in the tundra in the winter and they’ll get there. If the teachers tried to do the same, they’d die. The kids have this tremendous skill set relative to their environment. To succeed in their textbooks, you don’t need to do those certain things in their environment.

      This reminded me of the Inuit. They have the same brain size as East Asians, due to being one of the peoples from one of the 3 migrations from Siberia into the Americas, but they only have a 91 IQ despite living in one of the coldest climates in the world. Richard Lynn attributes this to them having a small population. Those who have bigger populations have more chance for certain mutations to arise and be selected for. People have marveled at their ability to track where they were and how they got around the tundra. This is visio-spatial ability at work.

      It seems like he’s trying to say that there no fit or unfit individuals for any given environment, only what is defined as ‘intelligence’ is different in each society, but as I am showing you, they all go back to the g factor, or general intelligence.

      He says when Alaskan Yup’ik kids were taught geometry using fish racks, they outperformed students who were taught the same concepts conventionally. This, again, back to visio-spatial ability. They are able to imagine their surroundings and remember where they were, giving them an advantage.

      This doesn’t threaten the hereditarian hypothesis. In fact, it strengthens it. Exceptions prove rules; especially if there is a good explanation for it, such as the population size arguments in regards to the argument of why don’t the most Northerly populations have the biggest brains (some of them have brains the same size as the Asian average) and highest IQs.

      One could argue, though, that if they did have a big population size along with proper nutrition and a ‘good environment’, they would have the highest IQs. Latitude is correlated with IQ at .6311 (Kanazawa 2007).

      Latitude, population size, stable environment (along with the evolutionary processes of climate) are the cause for higher IQ. Evolution is that driving process.


  2. GCM says:

    This is where Vox Day is absolutely correct–It is always necessary – it is absolutely vital – to carefully distinguish between scientody, or the scientific method, and scientistry, which is the scientific profession.

    You are a fraud.

    “Those in the tropics, for the most part, could just lounge around all day. With food being readily available, there was really no pressing need to “save” or “partition” their findings (as Africa is full of mostly a hunter-gatherer societies).”

    While it is accurate to state that Africa consisted of several hunter-gatherer societies, it is patently false to state that they could “lounge around all day” given the harsh conditions of the tropics.
 Cooperation is a core feature of human social life, with food sharing a universal trait that is the centerpiece of these groups. They foraged for food. They followed herds of big game. In both circumstances, specific strategies had to be developed based on their environment to maximize their efforts to survive. Sustained, mutual intra-tribal cooperation is an inevitable by-product of individual foraging tactics.

    A reasonable person is able to deduce from this source that, as YOU stated, “due to more cooperation being needed to survive, planning ahead (abstract thought) evolved to better help cope with the harsh environment”. Thus, it is completely a mischaracterization on your part, given the findings from the source, that African hunter-gatherer societies were other than conscientious. You are assuming that those living in colder climes adapted better than those living in warmer climes. Both adapted based on their available resources within their particular regions.

    In order to test your hypothesis, you would have to create a study by which criteria were established to demonstrate conclusively that Europeans, compared to Africans, “better evolved to help cope in their environment”. The problem is that colder and warmer climes have completely different variables. You would have to be able to somehow account for them in your study. Moreover, each group developed an intelligence, a skill set if you will, reflective of that environment. Those skill sets, while sharing similar traits (e.g. building of shelter, crafting weapons) are unique in how they are executed. How do you propose to account for those variables?

    Moreover, there were several kingdoms that had developed from 1000-1500 A.D. in African–Kush, Axum, and Mali, for starters. The consolidation of land by their leaders is a clear indication of the establishment of borders.

    “With Africans’ lack of conscientiousness, this leads to them not being vigilant, careful or thorough…”

    Since your original premise has been significantly damaged, this conclusion is other than the truth. Your subsequent “truths” were merely generalizations interconnected based on faulty logic.

    Both Africans and Europeans had developed survival skills based on mutual cooperation. They acclimated to their conditions through tactics reflective of their environment. In both cases, they were methodical and observant, clear signs of intelligence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Blog Stats

  • 852,394 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at


%d bloggers like this: