Neanderthal Quotient (NQ) Test

Over the past few decades, our understanding of Neanderthals has changed dramatically. Once portrayed as dim-witted brutes, they are now recognized as a closely related human lineage with sophisticated adaptations, social bonds, and technical skill. This shift in perspective has been driven by remarkable advances in science, particularly in genetics, archaeology, paleoanthropology, and climate research. By sequencing ancient DNA, researchers have shown that many living humans carry traces of Neanderthal ancestry. Careful excavation and analysis of tools, shelters, food remains, and even pigments have revealed populations capable of planning, cooperation, and long-term survival in harsh Ice Age environments.

The Neanderthal Quotient test is inspired by these discoveries, translating well-established scientific insights into a playful exploration of modern behavior and preference. It does not attempt to measure genetics, intelligence, or evolutionary “fitness.” Instead, it draws on broad patterns associated with Neanderthal life: physical robustness, tolerance for cold and seasonal change, practical problem-solving, comfort with small social groups, and a focus on immediate, tangible resources. These traits helped Neanderthals endure repeated glacial cycles, unpredictable climates, and demanding physical landscapes over hundreds of thousands of years.

Questions in the test are framed in contemporary terms—how you feel about physical work, food preferences, social environments, or practical solutions—because culture and technology have changed, but humans still vary in how they approach these basic challenges. Some people gravitate toward hands-on tasks and durable tools, while others prefer novelty and abstraction. Some thrive in large, stimulating social networks, while others feel most at ease in close-knit groups or quiet settings. The test treats these differences not as strengths or weaknesses, but as alternative ways of engaging with the world.

Scientific advances also remind us to be cautious. Neanderthals were not a monolithic group, and modern humans are not divided neatly into ancient categories. Neanderthals themselves showed regional diversity, innovation, and flexibility, and their behaviors overlapped extensively with those of early Homo sapiens. Likewise, modern preferences are shaped by culture, upbringing, environment, and personality far more than by distant evolutionary history. The test reflects this nuance by avoiding deterministic claims and by emphasizing that results describe tendencies, not identities.

At its core, the Neanderthal Quotient is a tool for curiosity and reflection. It invites you to imagine how everyday habits might translate into a radically different world—one without supermarkets, climate control, or digital networks. Would you favor sturdy, familiar solutions or constant experimentation? Would you conserve resources or seek novelty? Would you find comfort in solitude, or in a tight circle of trusted companions? By framing these questions through the lens of scientific discovery, the test offers a lighthearted way to engage with human evolution while acknowledging its complexity.

Most importantly, this test is just for fun. It is not a scientific assessment, a measure of ancestry, or a statement about who you “really” are. Instead, it is an invitation to explore how modern life still echoes ancient challenges—and to appreciate how far science has come in helping us understand our shared human past.

References

• Churchill, S. E. (2014). Thin on top: The evidence for Neanderthal cold adaptation. In N. J. Conard & J. Richter (Eds.), Neanderthals and modern humans in Western Asia (pp. 123–145). Springer.
• Froehle, A. W., & Churchill, S. E. (2009). Energetic competition between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans. PaléoAnthropology, 2009, 96–116.
• Rosas, A., Huguet, R., Estalrrich, A., García-Tabernero, A., Ríos, L., de la Rasilla, M., ... & Martínez-Maza, C. (2017). Neandertals revised. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(16), E2982–E2983. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703275114
• El Zaatari, S., Grine, F. E., Ungar, P. S., & Hublin, J.-J. (2011). Ecogeographic variation in Neandertal dietary habits: Insights from occlusal molar microwear texture analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21405
• Richards, M. P., & Trinkaus, E. (2009). Isotopic evidence for the diets of European Neanderthals and early modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(38), 16034–16039. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903821106
• Jaouen, K., Richards, M. P., Harvati, K., & Pons, F. (2019). Exceptionally high δ¹⁵N values in collagen from a Neanderthal child: A potential dietary explanation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10), 4408–4413. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814082116
• Skov, L., Peyrégne, S., Popli, R., Iasi, L. N. M., Peyrégne, S., ... & Prüfer, K. (2022). Genetic insights into the social organization of Neanderthals. Nature, 610(7932), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05283-y
• Hayden, B. (2012). Neandertal social structure? Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 31(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2011.00376.x
• Monnier, G. (2012). Neanderthal behavior. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 11.
• Villa, P., & Roebroeks, W. (2014). Neandertal–Denisovan ancestors and the modern human dispersal into Asia and Oceania. Current Anthropology, 55(5), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1086/678171
• Capra, J. A., et al. (2023). Archaic introgression shaped human circadian traits. Genome Biology and Evolution, 15(12), evad220. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evad220
• Spikins, P., Needham, A., Tilley, L., & Hitchens, G. (2018). Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context. World Archaeology, 50(3), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1433060
• Dastugue, J., & de Lumley, M. A. (1976). Les lésions traumatiques chez l’Homme de Néandertal. In H. de Lumley (Ed.), La Préhistoire française (Vol. 1, pp. 123–130). CNRS.
• Underdown, S. J., & Kivell, T. L. (2019). Similar cranial trauma prevalence among Neanderthals and Upper Palaeolithic modern humans. Nature, 563(7730), 686–690. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0686-8