You're not even telling a coherent story at this point. The "cold winter theory" isn't merely that the populations are different (though: again: when you look at the molecular evidence and the way genes propagate, it's nowhere nearly as clear as you'd think), it's that the cold winter populations are smarter. But you have to literally ignore most of human history to reach that conclusion. Somehow, in this view of the world, evolution only kicked in a couple hundred years ago. Seems unlikely!

Your fantasy is that every human group - no matter the genetics of the founding nomads, no matter how many generations they have had to diverge, no matter the selection pressures of their environment or even random chance, no matter how visibly different they have become over millennia of genetic differentiation - are all exactly, perfectly, indistinguishable in any and all non-visible traits (just because it would be "problematic" otherwise?). That is absurd.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about or who you're arguing with. You brought up the "cold winter theory". "Cold winter" is very funny. It's just a very funny theory put forth by a huckster white supremacist. Where do you hope to go from there?

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.