FREEPEOPLE...

The concept of "caucasian" applied to the inhabitants of the Asian suncontinent called "Indians" is problematic. First of all, what does "caucasian" mean? Historically it was the name given to a particular skull found at the Caucasus mountains in Central Asia[I believe it was German ethnographer Blumenbach who coined the term?] and it was assumed to be so "perfect"[LOL] that it became the standard of the so-called European "races".

But India is cast nation with much heterogeneity in terms of populations and their phenotypes and genotypes. Some Indians are extremely dark and some are quite depigmented. Their lineages are haplogroup lineages are quite distinct from those of Europe so in terms of classification the term "caucasian" won't apply except in a minority of cases. And much of India's population are of Dravidian ethnography while others descend from those groups that invaded from the north many centuries ago.

Rememeber that the standard terms used for "race" classification are old-fashioned 18th and 19th century terms that reflect the scientific naivete of the researchers who founded the discipline of anthropology. Thus terms like "caucasoid", "negroid" and "mongoloid" don't really have as much scientific heft as haplogroup analysis--founded on modern genetics.

Danube07

The reason why IQ fundamentalists have focused on monozygotic(identical) twins is because they are virtual clones of each other, so any differences in behaviors such as scores on IQ tests--especially when the twins are reared apart would be derived from nurture and environmental causes. So if one twin scores 100 on an IQ test and the other scores 120--then that 20 point difference would be due to the effect of the environment. But of course the real issue is how really different are the environments in question.