Why were white people so successful?
Why were black people so unsuccessful?
Why were east-Asians successful?
Why were the native Americans (both continents) only partially successful?
Define white people.
>>393775
Empire is only successful under an incredibly nihilistic, psychotic lens.
>>393775
I am of the opinion that a high value in culture and social cohesion leads to the strongest civilizations. When everyone is on the same page, you care more about your neighbors and community, and it leads to everyone taking care of each other naturally without the government forcing us to pay for welfare programs for people we are indifferent to. This is why the suburb communities in the U.S. are so successful despite the cultural shortcomings.
Again, just an opinion.
>>393794
So you mean that the aztecs are the most successful people who ever existed?
Jesus christ this thread is already terrible.
There are more than one factors that determine the "success" of a "race". Race in this case is white, black, and asian, even though there are no hard determinants for the human race.
Success can be boiled down to resources and ability to use those resources. Whites had resources and ability. Asians had ability but little resources due to their migration. Blacks have resources but no ability due to the lack of environmental pressures.
Define 'success'
>>393782
Albinos without slanty eyes.
>>393775
Were arabs successful?
If we define "success" by wealth, then the wealthiest man and therefore civilization in the world was Mansa Musa I of Mali, African king in the 14th century. His personal fortune was worth an estimated $2,229.69 billion, or over 20 Bill Gates combined.
>>394005
If you're pulling that shit then August Caesar had 4.6 trillion and marcus crassus had 2 trillion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures
hereditary, which he conviently overlooks for the sake of his ivory tower PC materialism
>>393775
>technological development is largely dependent on the number of specialists and the connectivity between specialists
>Afro-Eurasia had all the prime domesticable animals which meant fewer farmers and more specialists
>Afro-Eurasia had the world's most extensive trade network, which meant ideas could spread far and quickly
>China invented wet rice farming, their population quickly doubled, and they strictly controlled the flow of ideas out of their borders so China got ahead
>China declined, Mongols rekt them, and opened up Silk Road to the flow of informaiton again
>gunpowder reached Europe
>Europe's political situation* meant many nations of relatively equal power could coexist without one conquering all the others
>the symmetry of European warfare had the greatest incentive to develop better and better gunpowder weapons
>Europeans therefore had the best guns and canons in the world as soon as global sea trade became possible
>Europe made up trade imbalance with China using the wealth of the Americas
>Europe's dominance of global trade made it the hub of the flow of human knowledge and everything, meaning almost everything was thought up in Europe first before anywhere else
>Europe is therefore the first to industrialize, allowing them to not just control trade, but control the world
That's the gist of it.
>* Europe was kept stable despite having so many more or less equally strong nations constantly warring with one another because the papacy could arbitrate disputes and of the interconnected nature of European royalty. Waging a bloody campaign against other Christian nations to create one grand European empire was greatly disincentivized.
>>393775
Did you even fucking read the book?
>>393957
There could be other or more complex ways of defining success itt, but how about we go with technological development. It roughly linear and its rate is heavily dependent on the success of other aspects of society like agriculture and governance. It's therefore a pretty good metric for comparing civilizations.
>>393775
Building their respective civilization around good trading centers
>>394005
>2, 229 billion
thats two trillion dollars
>>393775
Ill give you a hint, it has nothing to do with that book and everything to do with why it was created to begin with
>black people
>unsuccessful
wat
They developed agriculture for themselves. Is developing agriculture a sign of success?
No?
>>394005
this meme again
>>394225
So why did they have great ideas?
They were just lucky enough to have the right mutation?
>>393775
>Why were white people so successful?
You're confusing whites with Mediterranean
>>393775
>successful
you dont realy understand history do you?
>>394242
yet they couldn't invent something as simple as wheel
>>394426
The wheel was only invented twice in all of history.
>>394081
Thanks, anon
This is the ultimate anti-/pol/ weapon.
>>394435
Stop with the idiotic board wars.
>>393775
Temperate climate, close to cradles of civilization, good crops, livestock and beasts of burden, metal working skills, lots of warfare.
Without beasts of burden and metal it's kinda hopeless to even try and compete.
tl;dr Outside of Eurasia and North Africa most civilizations didn't stand a chance by the year 1000.
>>394225
>>394209
Maybe you should read it before you say things like this
>>394676
Well yes and of the civilizations outside Eurasia and North Africa they had the most potential didn't they?
>>394667
>Temperate climate
wat
What difference does this make?
>>394676
This is what actually happened in real life. Africans imported domesticates, like the cow and the horse and the goat, as well as some crops.
And they had iron-working for the last 3,000 years.
>>394697
>What difference does this make?
Tundra, taiga, arctic and tropic regions are shit.
>>394225
Another great argument filled to the brim with academic integrity and useful citations and sources
>>393775
In what universe do you define American Indians as partially successful, but the more advanced Africans aren't successful?
>>394709
Why?
Temperate must be the easiest place to live, then, yes?
>>394722
Well, they did.
The Bantu took iron-working and their form of cow-based agriculture south of the equator, while horses were kept in the Sahel by tropical disease.
>>394748
North-American Indians were pretty useless, even more so than african
But the great civilizations of central and south america achieved a much higher degree of complexity than any african civlization
>>394761
>North-American Indians were pretty useless
You realize they had civilizations such as the Pueblo, Iroquois and Mississipians, and that Mesoamerica is in North America right?
>a much higher degree of complexity than any african civlization
By what measure. African metallurgy for example was light-years ahead of anything on the American continent.
>>394761
Not more than the Mali or Songhai, surely?
The Aztecs and the Inca were taken over by a few thousand people in the sixteenth century, while it took a further four centuries to conquer inland Africa. Why?
>>394758
>Temperate must be the easiest place to live, then, yes?
Challenging enough to have people want to make life easier yet not so harsh it kills civilization.
The pacific coast of Canada had several native tribes live in an areas so abudent with food they only had to work 6 months a year to get it all. The rest of the time was spent feasting and shit.
>>394772
>The Aztecs and the Inca were taken over by a few thousand people in the sixteenth century, while it took a further four centuries to conquer inland Africa. Why?
I'm >>394770
It actually had more to do with disease than any technology they had. European diseases severely weakened American states and made them conquerable, while the situation was reversed in Africa. Before modern medicine, Europeans trying to settle in Africa would die by the truckload to disease.
>>394761
I'm pretty sure North American amerindians had their own walled cities and dirt mound pyramids and shit. The pueblo had large cities and there were extensive trade networks.
I'm not going to compare North Americans with Africans, but I don't think North Americans get enough credit. They weren't just hunter gatherers. They had legit civilizations.
>>394777
>Challenging enough to have people want to make life easier yet not so harsh it kills civilization.
You'll have to explain why civilizations usually start in subtropical climates, then.
>The pacific coast of Canada had several native tribes live in an areas so abudent with food they only had to work 6 months a year to get it all. The rest of the time was spent feasting and shit.
From your example,
So like the Pacific Northwest natives, temperate means you don't need to develop in order to survive? While harsher environments where humans can't survive so easily encourage what?
>>394788
Its sad you didnt understand the book, but when you graduate from high school you should try again
>>394781
>It actually had more to do with disease than any technology they had. European diseases severely weakened American states and made them conquerable, while the situation was reversed in Africa. Before modern medicine, Europeans trying to settle in Africa would die by the truckload to disease.
These were the same diseases that were present in the Americas. Europeans trying to settle the tropics before modern times would die by the truckload to disease, this includes the places where the Aztecs and Inca were.
>>394788
He doesn't ignore other factors, he specifically discounts them when he states in the foreword that the book is about biogeographical factors.
>>394803
>These were the same diseases that were present in the Americas. Europeans trying to settle the tropics before modern times would die by the truckload to disease, this includes the places where the Aztecs and Inca were.
The key difference is that the diseases Europeans brought were even more devastating to the natives, even if they themselves were also affected by it. They had no diseases to spread and infect African natives with.
>>394814
Not everything is about politics dipshit. I know its very difficult for you to comprehend that science and anthropology dont necessarily have political agendas.
I dont know why I even bother, just take your shitposting to pol so people can discuss history
This book deserves a sticky for the eternal mad
>>394637
because /pol/ thinks white people were successful because they were genetically superior to brown people
>>394849
Explain in your own words how it downplays Europe and is meant for "self-hating whites"
>>394788
Generally "great men" who make a significant impact on history only do so because of bigger factors at work like public unrest due to a shitty tax system or a drought weakening a neighboring empire. Great men are focussed on in history books because:
A) That's what historians of antiquity wrote about.
B) They give a face to historical events for students to remember.
C) Humans like to think human willpower is the driving force of history because it makes them feel powerful.
>>394789
The Fertile crescent and China?
>So like the Pacific Northwest natives, temperate means you don't need to develop in order to survive? While harsher environments where humans can't survive so easily encourage what?
Nothing really, look at desert/steppe nomads or Inuit.
>>394814
You can read GG&S yourself if you like.
If you don't mention other factors, you are ignoring them. When you say you're looking at a particular set of factors, you aren't ignoring the other factors. You've already mentioned them as being not the focus of the book.
>>394818
This is the key difference. Europeans could not control territory in Africa until modern medicine because the natives were resistant to both the Old World and the Tropical disease package, the Europeans were only resistant to one.
>>394863
The Fertile Crescent was subtropical. China was the exception, where agriculture developed further north (on the Yellow River) than anywhere in the world.
If you check all independent foundations of agriculture, you can see that most were subtropical (Fertile Crescent, Indus Valley, Sahel, Mesoamerica) or tropical (New Guinea).
>Nothing really, look at desert/steppe nomads or Inuit.
All fantastically well equipped for their environments, I'd say.
>>394914
You think white people are a race?
>>394914
He doesn't dismiss any of the great thinkers, or philosophers, or leaders, or inventors, or explorers. He tries to explain them with more than just 'Europeans are just better because of a random mutation', or whatever the alternative view is.
Is the theory that Europeans are better because they were lucky enough to have a random mutation better than the one that they were lucky enough to be in Europe?
>>394914
>The book was written precisely to counter eurocentrism, and the belief that whites are inherently superior to others.
>claim whites aren't inherently superior
>SELF HATING CUCCOLD WHITES I TELL YOU HWAT
> By summing up European success to simple geography, he dismisses, purposefully the many great thinkers, philosophers, leaders, inventors, and explorers who paved the way for progress and laid the groundwork for the incredible quality of life we enjoy today.
The Great Men Theory of history has mostly been abandoned. Figures like Tesla or Alexander or Charlemagne would have never done what they did if they didn't have the social and economic factors around them.
>>394922
Their empires never penetrated deep inland until the modern age.
>>394919
>All fantastically well equipped for their environments, I'd say.
Yes but not really nation building type. Unless you count conquest that is.
>>394925
Next he'll try to say they're people
>>394922
You should read the history of the British and French in Africa. France didn't solidly control North Africa until the mid-C20th.
Care to explain why Britain was able to take over India, but not to conquer African states at the same latitude?
>>394933
Lucky mutation?
Maybe more along the lines of the hardship this group of people experienced for a hundred thousand years shaped them into a genetic/cultural group with the ability to master the rest of the world, a la natural selection.
>>394936
If we respect European achievements, we have to count conquest as part of nation-building.
>>394939
Saying there are no races isn't the same as saying we're all literally the same you shitsucker.
>>394946
Because it was an arid shithole presumably devoid of resources and India was a cash cow at the time.
>>394949
>hardship
I thought Europe was easy to live in, that's why it developed more?
Or is it 'just right'?
>a hundred thousand years
Where do you get this figure?
>>394956
>arid
No.
>shithole
Opinion.
>presumably devoid
It's safe to assume there are resources everywhere. Europeans circa colonialism certainly believed so. They were just unable to conquer Africans until modern medicine.
>>394981
>Its been abandoned by relativistic douche bags like you who have no clue about history.
What a compelling argument
>But its arrogant of you to assume that it was simply money by itself that allowed Charlemagne
No one is saying it was simply money. But countless factors lead Charlemagne to accomplish what he did. Had he been born in some random village in Arabia or the Amazon, he never would have done any of it, even if he himself had all the same ambitions and talents. There are countless factors at play, some of them are geography itself, and some of them, like demographics, are directly related to geography.
Here's a question, /his/:
If you arbitrarily divide up the regions of the world into races of people, who have been essentially separated for 10's of thousands, if not over a hundred thousand years, each subjected to their own unique environmental selective stressors, calamities, hardships, or lack thereof, won't, by definition, one of these arbitrary groups be "better" at something, than the other, or rest? They aren't all going to emerge 1:1.
Consider that Kenyan tribe, barely 2 million people, who win the Boston Marathon every other year, despite millions of other people worldwide training for it just as hard. Could you really dispute that they have become uniquely adapted to it to a point where they gain enough of an edge over everyone else?
What is hard to get about Europeans being better at modern innovation, resourcefulness, whatever quality it is that separates Euro societies from others? This is all graded relatively after all, there is no golden neutral standard we are examining this through.
If these "white", "black", "asian", etc. groups of human beings had all been plopped onto their respective continents at the same exact time, given a time limit like 1,000 or 2,000 years, and this is how things had shook out, he would have a point, but he grossly discounts the obvious cultural and genetic factors that are at play here.
I think this is something most people silently realize but either willingly don't want to acknowledge, or subconsciously bury it with revisionist, sociologist drivel.
>>394989
Yes. It's height was after the Congress of Berlin, and a lot of the territories in Africa were not controlled directly, or even securely, they were simply allocated to the British by treaty with other Europeans.
>>394970
>It's safe to assume there are resources everywhere
Not the ones that are profitable at the time, retard. They aren't going to devote an incredible amount of money and manpower on a new investment if another is doing just fine.
>>394996
>who have been essentially separated for 10's of thousands, if not over a hundred thousand years,
Extremely few people fit this bill. The only ones I can think of that MIGHT have been isolated that long are the Sentinelese Islanders. Humans like to move around and fuck each other, no one group of them has been isolated that long.
>>394964
>I thought Europe was easy to live in, that's why it developed more?
I never said that.
>Where do you get this figure?
An approximation based on the out of Africa theory
>>394996
They didn't end up at the same level in real life.
Africa was about 2,000 years behind Eurasia; after 40,000 years of independent development.
In some marginal places, you find people who didn't develop in this way. Tasmania is the best example of this. We know that they had fire when they got there, since Aboriginal Australians brought knowledge of fire with them; and we know they couldn't make fire when Europeans arrived.
Just across the water, in Southeast Australia, Aboriginals were developing weir fishing during the same time that the Tasmanians were losing capabilities.
>>395019
Naturally, there is a continuum around the edge. But yes, Europeans prior to the last 1-2,000 years were very isolated from sub-Saharan Africans and Southeast Asian Islanders, etc. No point of relevant contact.
>>395031
>But yes, Europeans prior to the last 1-2,000 years were very isolated from sub-Saharan Africans and Southeast Asian Islanders,
But that's wrong. There were multiple waves of immigration both out of and into Africa.
>>395036
>into
>yfw the least developed peoples in Africa are found to have Eurasian roots
>khoi-San I'm looking at you
>>394996
Genetic factors are hard to correlate with historical events, don't even amount to that much of a difference, and often are used to serve selfish interests of one race over another.
I mean, whites are slightly more at risk of skin cancer than blacks. Does that mean white cultures were held back by melanoma? The differences are so minor and there is no good way to show they were significant relative to other factors. The people who claim race is the only factor that matters are idiots with motives beyond the finding the truth.
>>395036
I really don't know what kind of game you're trying to play
It's very easy to tell the genetic distance between native Europeans and sub-Saharans, it's a biological fact
If this continuous flow of people you are describing had happened, we would not have distinct races of people as they stand
most of East Asia is very inbred and can be traced to a small group of 10,000 individuals, for instance
>>395037
>India was easier (cheaper) to conquer.
It was still expensive, there was just much, much more wealth to plunder to make it worth it.
>>395047
you didnt really refute his points did you
>>395047
>I really don't know what kind of game you're trying to play
Historical accuracy, don't spout shit like "Africans and Europeans never interbred until recently!" and get paranoid about an invisible agenda when someone points out that you're wrong.
>>395042
No, the ramifications are very significant. If you have a bell curve of abilities for two groups of people, and one curve is shifted slightly more to the right, that means they have an incredibly larger group of tail-end individuals who can drive societal progress in that way, shape, or form.
It looks insignificant from a surface level but in practice this tail-end group of individuals is very important to everything.
>>395051
>>395050
Am I getting memed or do you guys know nothing about science
>>393775
"The Revenge of Geography" focuses more on the present and near future repercussions of our hubris in thinking technology and globalism has trumped geography and broad cultural trends. But early in the book, Kapalan talks about the rise of the west and even mentions "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
Kaplan has some similar ideas, but there's one aspect he focuses on much more than Diamond. Kaplan points out that Europe is very small (for a continent), but that it's geographically divided up into smaller areas. Lots of large islands like the British Isles and Mediterranean islands, lots of large peninsulas like Italy and the Iberian Peninsula, and lots of mountains and large rivers. This allowed people who were geographically very close to one another to remain distinct peoples and therefore fostered competition. It's this competition that Kaplan thinks drove Europeans ahead of people on other continents.
I doubt that it explains everything, but I think he makes some good points.
>>395063
>haplogroup autism
Where exactly does this disprove what I said about no human populations being isolated for very long? Fuck even the Americas with a massive genetic bottleneck had multiple immigration waves.
>>394996
Its not really about the development that reaches into engineering and that kind of innovation. Its about how fast they could get to a point where you could spend that amount of resources on research.
Ancient egyptians and aztecs and lots of other civs had the same or better understanding of mathematics and astronomy as europeans did, but they didnt have the same natural resources to build fantastic ships, metal to make armour and weapons, efficient crops that could sustain a big population allowing specialists to do their thing.
This is all Diamond is saying.
Do you really not think that if you put aztecs or mayans in europe that they wouldnt have invented metallurgy?
>>395071
Because they are very distinct and your idea of this continuous genetic intermixing didn't happen. Your "multiple waves" are fake. Or, by all means, do you have some pre-language hunter-gatherer sources to back your shit up with confidence? Hard DNA evidence says we have been living isolated enough for a long time.
>>395083
>implying culture and religion originate genetically
>>395084
>pre language
You must mean prehistoric. Humans have probably had language for a hundred thousand years. No human left Africa without it.
>>395086
Thisanon is right.
They had the resources, and they were developing them in the same direction as Europeans were.
People develop seafaring when they live on land where you can see islands from the shore. The best seafarers (it's a toss up between Europeans and Polynesians for my money) come from places where the geography lends itself to these situations.
>>395084
>Your "multiple waves" are fake
Specify which waves. Are you saying modern archaeology and genetics is faked for some conspiracy against you?
Are you talking about Australia? They had migrations from India just a few thousand years ago http://www.nature.com/news/genomes-link-aboriginal-australians-to-indians-1.12219
Maybe you mean Americas? They also have genetic roots from Austronesia and had at least three different waves of immigration from Siberia, the latest being the Inuit
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/?no-ist
Or perhaps the mythical Africans who are the last pure homo sapiens? Actually wait no Africans also have Neanderthal DNA because of multiple waves of migration back into Africa from Eurasia http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/04/news/la-ol-neanderthals-africa-dna-20140204
Again I'm asking you, which waves are you talking about? Think nice and hard on this, and don't confuse calling someone a kike with actual evidence.
>>395075
You can't say that with confidence. Europe isn't much more resource-rich than other continents. And something you have to remember: when they didn't have something, they got on their ships and went to go find it. An element of distinct agency is there.
I think it's lazy to assume they had all they needed. If that was the case they wouldn't be sailing all over the world looking for resources, and risking their lives and money to do it.
You also can't say egyptians and aztecs had the same/better understanding of astronomy and mathematics, that's just false. They grasped important tenets but first off, the "Aztecs were scientifically advanced" notion is basically conjured, it was still elementary compared to Europeans, and secondly there is nothing to say that other cultures could have conceptualized calculus, physics, biology, etc. to the degree Europeans did.
I think it's pretty clear from the title that Diamond is trying to reduce European achievements to happenstance and a lucky draw that has no bearing on their ability.
>>395097
>not having read the book fail
>>395102
It was my understanding that the Inuit returned from North America TO Siberia. They're the successors to the Dorset-culture people.
>>395086
Not really, good luck building an efficient iron mine in the rainforest with no draft animals.
>>395109
Where do you think the Dorset lived?
>>395114
haha, I know that meme too :)
>>395107
>I think it's pretty clear from the title that Diamond is trying to reduce European achievements to happenstance and a lucky draw that has no bearing on their ability.
Everyone reduces these achievements to happenstance.
Diamond is proposing an explanation.
His detractors say that there is no explanation, or that it's genetic happenstance, the luck of mutation.
>>395102
Minor tribal movements =/= waves
I think it's fucking safe to say that pockets of people strayed from the center and intermixed elsewhere at some point in time. That is insignificant population-wise as I've already pointed out.
You are using outliers as the basis of your approach and that is simply retarded.
>>395115
I thought they lived in what is now Canada.
>>395125
>Minor tribal movements =/= waves
Show me specifically where this was minor movements.
>That is insignificant population-wise
Except they obviously weren't insignificant to leave a genetic imprint on the whole modern population.
>You are using outliers as the basis of your approach and that is simply retarded.
Give me some examples of long-term "isolated" peoples.
>>395122
If it's sheer happenstance, it has no bearing on the people as they stand today. If it's a mutation, it very well does. That's the big point of controversy. Can continential African countries actually ever reach the level of modern Western development on their own, or is that standard too high?
>>395115
>>395126
>>395132
>Can continential African countries actually ever reach the level of modern Western development
Several of them are already at the point that modern Western countries were a few decades ago, so I don't see why this is a huge question. In a few more decades they'll be at the point we are right now.
>>395132
Africans developed agriculture and iron-working independently, so yes, they probably would have kept going in that direction.
If it's a mutation, then it's genetic happenstance. And you still have to identify the mutation.
>>395140
I guess you can wait and see.
>>395145
>Africans developed agriculture and iron-working independently, so yes, they probably would have kept going in that direction.
I don't understand the relevance of this post.
>>395152
Anon is proposing that Africans were not developing greater sophistication in their exploitation of their environment, and the organization of their societies, like Europeans were.
This is wrong. There was never a point where Africans reached a plateau and stopped developing, at least not until after they were colonized.
>>395159
Europeans didn't develop gunpowder on their own either, but that didn't stop them from utilizing it in new ways and using it to advance themselves.
to try and salvage a shit thread and answer your question:
>why are Europeans so successful?
they won the geographical lottery. Mild subtropical to temperate climate ensured stable harvests and the European continent poses no real barriers to travel between regions, making transport and trade easier than say, Africa's deserts and rainforests. The Mediterranean sea in particular allows for fast travel between regions for trade between Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa. In short, land, climate, and location was all in their favor to advance quickly.
>why were black people so unsuccessful
They lost the geographical lottery. trade between cities was tough to establish when it involves crossing the Sahara and the Jungles, and the african coastline isn't exactly close to any valuable trade partners except North Africa and the Swahili states, which found more success than the African interior, who remained almost totally isolated from the world, and thus couldn't advance without exposure to the outside world and ideas they had to offer.
>why were easy Asians successful
See: Europe. Resources, no real trade barriers, fast sea travel across the sea of Japan and South China Sea. Japan actually shot itself in the foot for isolating itself. but advanced to modern standards in just decades due to their position along trade routes.
>why were Natives unsuccessful
Isolation and sheer distance to travel between places. This was remedied in the Aztec and Inca's cases. but crossing the plains was a monumental task, and no native pack animals like cows or horses ruined the possibility of trading goods between regions. Their isolation was the biggest factor, making them vulnerable to foreign disease they never experienced in life.
>>395159
So there is a chance that someone introduced it to them.
Maybe whenever this genetic marker was introduced to Africa?
>>395174
NIGERIA
IS
WHITE
>>394005
When he trecked through the Sahara dessert he gave away such much gold to the towns and villages he converted (to Christianity actually, i believe) that he caused run away inflation and devalued his own gold all through North African. Not that that was hard considering what Africa was at the time.
>>395055
You are defining what is significant by greatest differences among humans that define IQ tests. I'm saying the differences aren't that significant. Most humans no matter where they are from can be a physicist or a rocket scientist. We just live in a society that is competitive enough that those minor differences in ability are enough to dissuade people with IQs 15 points or lower than the average of the field.
Two people with 85 IQs working can accomplish virtually any task better than a single person with a 115 IQ. That right there shows that minor differences in intelligence can be made up for with other factors like the number of specialists in a society. Humans aren't that much more intelligent than chimps, dolphins, or elephants in the grand scheme of things. The greatest difference advantage we have is our ability to network ourselves and thereby create something greater than the sum of it's parts.
A group of a humans with an IQ of 160 stranded on Australia wouldn't be expected to reach the Industrial revolution than the much larger and much more network humans in Afro-Eurasia.
>>393775
Anon, you ought to read Richard Hanson's "Carnage and Culture." He takes up this issue and answers literally every one of those questions like a boss.
>>395190
>Two people with 85 IQs working can accomplish virtually any task better than a single person with a 115 IQ
Brute manpower isn't everything.
Two people with IQs of 85 (and parity between all specialized cognitive abilities) will both be unable to solve, say, a math problem that only 15% of the population can solve in a reasonable measure of time. The guy with a 115 IQ will likely has the capacity to efficiently work through it.
Small differences in ability cause stark differences in speed of comprehension, because learning complex and abstract things is partly a matter of progressive thresholding.
The 115 IQ is in many ways more useful than two 85 IQs
>>394005
>has an incredible amount of wealth
>uses it recklessly to cause massive inflation in every country he visits
Black people.
>>395202
>Two people with IQs of 85 (and parity between all specialized cognitive abilities) will both be unable to solve, say, a math problem that only 15% of the population can solve in a reasonable measure of time. The guy with a 115 IQ will likely has the capacity to efficiently work through it.
Speaking from experience, two people studying together can learn more quickly than one smarter person studying alone.
Networking individuals is the key to human success.
>>395205
>You try to make it sound like the Sahara covers the entire fucking continent, but it only covers the northern half, including the area where the first empires of antiquity arose. Obviously the desert wasnt a hindrance to the Egyptians or Carthaginians, who were more civilized than thier neighbors. Geography and climate alone DO NOT explain the rise of these people. A myriad of other factors are involved.
The Egyptians didn't build a civilization in the desert, they built one on the Nile.
>>395226
Cooperation is very important, of course. Especially when the task is sufficiently lengthy to stratify manpower, sectoring off people to do specialized work for the whole.
But these individuals need the brute capacity to understand their own domain of specialization. The constituent needs the capacity to comprehend his or her fragment of expertise.
100,000 80 IQ people cooperating to build the atom bomb are going to fare far worse than the 50-200 (rough guess) or so of the most key scientists and engineers at the Manhattan project.
>>395205
Thank you for completely not understanding the post at all. Its really quite remarkable how you manage that.
Egypt and carthaginians had ready access to the Mediterranean, which meant great trade routes and exchange of ideas and innovation. They also had some of the most fertile land on the planet and no rainforests with deadly diseases which prevented expansionist building.
The sahara is geographical barrier, which hinders trade and spread of ideas, agriculture and technology from the north to the south
>>395247
There were almost certainly 100,000 people with an IQ of 80 or below who contributed meaningfully to the Manhattan Project.
You seem to be dancing around a point that works against you, that civilization selects for lower intelligence, since high intelligence is not needed to in most of the positions in compartmentalized work. Among hunter-gatherers, everyone benefits individually from having high intelligence, with no drawbacks.
>Implying intelligence can be quantified
>Implying it's not a complex state of mind that's a result of environmental conditioning
MAH BRAIN POWER LEVEL IS GREATER THAN YOURS IM SOO INTELLIGENT
this is how sad you are
>>395215
That depends on what one means by "that much". A human isn't that much more intelligent relative to a cow than a chimpanzee is, but chimpanzee is closer to a cow when it comes to what a pack of groups of either are capable of relative to humans. That's because most of humanity's abilities comes from networking.
>>395221
kek
Fiscally irresponsible
>>395226
>Networking individuals is the key to human success.
Networking is less efficient for problem solving the more people are involved, especially if none of the people can even understand the problem, because they lack the working memory to hold a useful portion of the problem in their conscious mind AND lack the pattern recognition skills to find solutions or even just meaningful correlations in the data.
If you let 100 mentally retarded people brainstorm a problem, they will probably not come up with a better approach to a problem than a single genius.
>>395262
>There were almost certainly 100,000 people with an IQ of 80 or below who contributed meaningfully to the Manhattan Project.
Through taxation?
You don't have to be too smart to do hard labor (the acquisition of natural resources), but safety practices during mining, operating machinery, construction work, etc requires a bit of a brain.
Poeple with sub-80 IQs are rather dumb, trusting them to drive to work could be construed as enabling a public hazard.
>>395247
>100,000 80 IQ people cooperating to build the atom bomb are going to fare far worse than the 50-200 (rough guess) or so of the most key scientists and engineers at the Manhattan project.
Your conception of a person with an IQ of 80 is based around how intelligent they act within positions given to people with such IQs. A person with an IQ of 80 is perfectly able to be a nuclear physicist if they work their way through the educational material. They never do though because they find out early on in their lives they can't compete with smarter people in things like math and science so they stop thinking about those fields. The world would still be able to operate if everyone's IQ dropped by 20 points. It would just take a little longer to educate people for the field and it fields would require slightly more specialization.
>>395269
>smart-ass
I'm saying that a reliably flooding river is not an unlikely place for a civilization to arise.
It's actually the thing that most centers of civilization have in common.
>>395318
You are wrong about literally everything you posted, Im not going to bother anymore. Stick to what your'e good at, shitposting on stormfront and pol
>>395318
>Europe and Asian have suffered far more from disease than any other cultures in the world
Hence being able to develop a greater resistance to these diseases that other populations which weren't exposed to them for long periods of time
>>395310
>A person with an IQ of 80 is perfectly able to be a nuclear physicist if they work their way through the educational material. They never do though because they find out early on in their lives they can't compete with smarter people in things like math and science so they stop thinking about those fields.
No, they simply don't have the capacity to comprehend the material, then to further apply it in complex ways.
Why is this even controversial?
There are UNTIMED reasoning tests which are still very valid measures of intellect and analytic skills. If I give someone an untimed form of the Advanced Progressive Ravens Matrices, if he's a bit thick, he will never ever correctly solve all of the problems given any imaginable allowed environment and duration to work in.
Like I said earlier, learning is partly a pass-fail thresholding system. You need a degree of native pattern recognition, working memory, and more general abstract reasoning to actually comprehend the material. Additionally, fixed comprehension is not sufficiently useful, you must APPLY the curriculum.
Did nobody here read Diamond's book? It feels like everyone just watched a wrong summary on youtube or something. Most of the objections are resolved in the book. Nobody seems to know what Diamond even argues. Guns, Germs and Steel is about how civilizations are limited by their environment, and how even people with identical heritage create societies with very different levels of complexity and know how, depending on what they can work with.
His personal ideas about the heritability of intelligence are irrelevant to his thesis. He doesn't claim, that civilizations are not also shaped by non-geographic factors.
>>395310
You have clearly never in your life interacted with stupid people, and you clearly lack all self awareness when it comes to your cognitive abilities. You cannot understand arbitrarily complex concepts if you just have enough time.
>>393794
it's definitely not just empire we're talking about though
>>395299
I'd appreciate it if you stopped saying "mentally retarded" for effect. We aren't even talking about that level of difference relative to the popular conception of a helmet wearing retarded person. Such people aren't even indicative of any healthy human population on Earth. They have serious genetic or developmental problems which led to their disability. If you are talking about someone on the legal edge of retardation like an IQ of 70 then my argument still applies though. They could do anything a person with an IQ of 115, they just couldn't learn it as quickly.
Anyway, an person of regionally average intelligence can do any task someone of average intelligence from another another region. Average intelligence helps but is much less relevant than other factors like how many specialists are available or how well networked they are.
>>395352
>for effect
affect*
;^)
>>395344
>No, they simply don't have the capacity to comprehend the material, then to further apply it in complex ways.
You are wrong. The kind of capacities you are talking about don't vary that much. The differences between human intelligence are quantitative, not qualitative. Every advanced concept is made up of much smaller concepts. Newton didn't just come up with calculus in one blinding flash of thought. It was the result of a step by step logical progression trying to solve mathematical problems.
And speaking of historical scientific advances, even if you took out some of history's smartest and most notable thinkers everything still would have progressed. Every famous theory would have still been developed because many less intelligent people were making contributions that would have led to the same end result.
>>395365
Why are you focussing on the plague, there are many more infectious diseases, smallpox, influenza etc?
>>395341
>>395349
>You have clearly never in your life interacted with stupid people, and you clearly lack all self awareness when it comes to your cognitive abilities. You cannot understand arbitrarily complex concepts if you just have enough time.
A "stupid person" is someone who gives up on "being smart". I've met stupid people and I agree that they could never make meaningful contributions to physics or mathematics. But at some point in their life they realized they were less intelligent than the average person so they stopped trying to foster the mind capable of physics and mathematics.
No one is inherently "bad at math". The people who say that they are "bad at math" simply gave up on understanding math.
>>395395
That's your wrong thesis, not a fact.
>>395379
>You are wrong. The kind of capacities you are talking about don't vary that much.
They actually do. In adults, if your working memory capacity is 1 SD above average, you have about a 30% higher complex memory span. After about one in a few thousand, this can get to be over double the average. I'm not sure how well this observation translates into variance in more complex traits, but working memory is alone an alright indicator of smarts.
>The differences between human intelligence are quantitative, not qualitative.
The quantitative evinces the qualitative. Useless distinction.
>Every famous theory would have still been developed because many less intelligent people were making contributions that would have led to the same end result.
Why would disparate, lesser thinkers come to unifying conclusions and application? Not to mention, none of these hypothetical thinkers would have below average intellect, and I would imagine virtually all of them would be highly above average.
It is an interesting thought though. Using IQ as a crude reference for scientific creativity, mathematical and philosophical genius, etc, how different would our society be if 145 were the hard cap on the distribution (given everything else is equal)?
>>395401
What's wrong is the idea the concepts like calculus and special relativity are indivisible instead of a logical progression of much smaller concepts.
And we aren't even talking about ideas that advanced! We are talking about little advanances liek some idiot messing around with alloys and discovering a stronger steel or messing around with flammable stuff and discovering an explosive gunpowder like mixture. No one would argue a person with an IQ of 75 isn't utterly incapable of mixing stuff and seeing what happens. It's little developments like that which we are talking about and really make up the differences between the various separate worldzones and their respective technological levels.
>>395426
Your entire argument is dependent on the idea that concepts can be large and indivisible such that a person with just a few less IQ points coudln't possibly understand or come up with it. That is wrong. Every "large" concept is made up of many much smaller and managable concepts. Calculus is developed from previous concepts of finding the area under curves by dividing them up into many small rectangles. General relativity was born of the supposition that the speed of light is constant. The rest of either example are just part of a logical progression from those earlier and very comprehensible ideas.
>>395470
*special relativity
>>395451
*is utterly incapable
Too many errors. I apologize.
>>393775
Let no man foget how fucking kingz we wuz
WE WUZ PHARAOS!!!
>Why were white people so successful?
Historical determinism based on geography.
>Why were black people so unsuccessful?
White man's oppression.
>Why were east-Asians successful?
Wonderful culture of hard work and tolerance
>Why were the native Americans (both continents) only partially successful?
White man's oppression.
>>395470
To be sufficiently specialized to advance a field, even in a minute way, requires at least a sort of schismatic comprehension of a fine aspect of the field. Even an item of the whole is very complex in its own right.
If the element is too small it bears little cohesive relevance.
The scale of the fundamental units of the sciences, philosophy, and mathematics are defined by logical pertinence and applicability.
To fully grasp a unit, or splinter of the field that is sufficiently relevant to offer any utility whatsoever, this requires fairly meaty cognition.
>East Asia
>successful
Japan doesn't count as an entire region, also they're slinking back into the shitter.
>>395536
The book is still an interesting insight into geographic determinants of social outcomes, despite Diamond's pretty explicit political leanings.
It is super overblown as some landmark explanation of historical ethnic inequality, that's usually what idiots take it to be.
The third world exists because of third worlders, not the soil they inhabit. The book is an extremely elaborate attempt to undermine this fact.
>>395517
>Even an item of the whole is very complex in its own right.
Like what? Every advancement in theoretical physics was born of a logical progression of very manageable ideas from a minor supposition.
Suppose A is true.
A therefore B
B therefore C
D therefore E
E therefore F
B, C, E, and F are know to be true by experiment.
The A-theory is therefore likely true.
No alternative theory predicts B, C, E, and F.
Further experimentation also shows D to be true.
The A-theory is accepted to be true.
>>395566
The norse were so successful in greenland
>>393775
Define "success"
>>395566
The third world exists because the Cold War. :^)
>>395566
But what if they because inferior subhumans because of the geographical conditions?
I mean, no one denies that Africans are inferiors, but maybe their civilizations developped less than others because of geographical situation, and then evolution took care of making them biologically inherently inferior (thus preventing them for being equal to others even when raised in other races societies).
>>395529
Japan was never ahead of China before Europeans began giving them high tech weapons. The Portuguese gave them muskets allowing them to invade Korea and they were able to defeat Russia and later fight in WW2 because the British helped them modernize their navy.
China was for a time the most advanced region on Earth.
>>395600
Explaining why a person was able to achieve something doesn't make it not an achievement.
>>395550
>despite Diamond's pretty explicit political leanings.
In the book? What are they?
>>395593
Evolution doesn't make things inherently inferior or superior. You are not evolutionary above or below a fly. You are just different.
Similarly, you could say that certain groups of people didn't develop mathematical logic as much as others as a result of its uselessness for hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
240-Grit Very Fine Sandpaper Tier
>Geographic circumstance is a key factor in the success or failure of human groups
40-Grit Coarse Sandpaper Tier
>Geographic circumstance is the key factor in the success or failure of human groups
24-Grit Extra Coarse Sandpaper Tier
>Because geographic circumstance determines outcomes, I am not to blame
>Because we must be able to blame, geographic circumstance cannot determine outcomes
>>395624
And the book, as you'd know if you read it, puts forward the 240 grit argument.
>>395630
>Do some research into how leftists believe European culture came to dominate the world, and you will understand precisely what Jared Diamond's political views are.
I already read GG&S, you say this book is permeated with this view. So tell us what the view is and how the book supports it.
Would two countries with identical genetics have different average IQs if one country had widespread malnutrition and a terrible education system?
>>395642
Obviously yes. The diversity in intelligence among humans is mainly down to nutrition and education.
>>395630
>By crediting the mountain or river you were born near, and nothing else, is absolutely an attack on someone, as it implies that a dart toss was responsible for your successes.
Everything is just waves/particles interacting with one another. The deterministic nature of reality doesn't mean accomplishments don't exist.
Einstein published the photoelectric effect. That accomplishment was dependent on Einstein having access to and attending physics lectures and many other things. That doesn't mean Einstein shouldn't get credit for the photo-electric effect.
Were Amerindian civilizations fairly advanced for being so metallurgicaly primitive or were they just as advanced as Eurasian civilizations thousands of years ago at the same level of metallurgical development?
>>395698
Seems like saying 'Europeans are better just because' is the lazy answer. Trying to find out why Europeans are better is the hard answer.
And he does say that European culture is superior, that's the premise of the book, finding out why this is so. He just says that European individuals aren't necessarily superior, which obviously pisses you off.
>>395695
Thats an interesting point, i can't think of any comparable structures to Cahokia, Aztec contructions etc from the time of Otzi (European chalcolithic). Anyone know of any?
>>395695
Native American civilizations just couldn't stop collapsing, so technology was all over the place. It is like an end after the end after the end after the end scenario. You sometimes had Native Americans abandon entire cities and go back to semi-nomad lifestyles or rural farms for no known reason, and technology would then be lost and take centuries to arise again
Why did they keep collapsing?
Jared says it happened to the Mayans because they ruined their environment with over-exploitation, leading to famine and diseases. It could be assumed that he would hold similar theories for other collapses.
It is also possible that every single arrival to the continent brought deadly diseases, so perhaps Vikings, lost Southeast Asian fishermen and European shipwrecks arriving to the continent all ended up with apocalyptic scenarios.
>>395585
You obviously know nothing about physics
>>395773
I have a physics degree. Every major advancement was due to logical progressions made up of simple concepts. The concepts that weren't logically derived from previous concepts were similarly simple suppositions.
>>395763
>Jared says it happened to the Mayans because they ruined their environment with over-exploitation, leading to famine and diseases. It could be assumed that he would hold similar theories for other collapses.
I've never heard that. It was my understanding that they collapsed because they experienced an exceptional drought and didn't have any rivers and lakes nearby.
>>395763
>It is also possible that every single arrival to the continent brought deadly diseases, so perhaps Vikings, lost Southeast Asian fishermen and European shipwrecks arriving to the continent all ended up with apocalyptic scenarios.
I don't think diseases were THAT infectious.
>>395825
Drought seems most likely
>Climatic factors were first implicated in the Collapse as early as 1931 by Mayanists Thomas Gann and J.E.S. Thompson.[18] In The Great Maya Droughts, Richardson Gill gathers and analyzes an array of climatic, historical, hydrologic, tree ring, volcanic, geologic, lake bed, and archeological research, and demonstrates that a prolonged series of droughts probably caused the Classic Maya Collapse.[19] The drought theory provides a comprehensive explanation, because non-environmental and cultural factors (excessive warfare, foreign invasion, peasant revolt, less trade, etc.) can all be explained by the effects of prolonged drought on Classic Maya civilization.
>>395809
As I said in another post, I've read that it was due to an extreme drought. They were particularly susceptible to devastating droughts because they lived in a region with very few fresh water supplies beyond rain. They only were able to survive dry seasons by channeling rainy season precipitation across their cities into cisterns which were managed by the religious leaders who they believed controlled the rains in the first place.
>>395603
>China was for a time the most advanced region on Earth
When? This sounds like WE WUZ KINGZ bullshit.
A lot of posts are being deleted.
>>395787
>lying about a physics degree on the internet
The consepts where not simple. They where and continue to be so hard that the vast majority of people are unable to master them.
>>395738
To be fair, the Amerindian civilizations we are talking about were a whole hell of a lot more recent so than Afro-Eurasian civilizations at a similarly level of metallurgical development so there there are more survive examples of Amerindian technical and cultural accomplishments.
That said, maybe Amerindian warfare was more limited than neolithic/Bronze Age Afro-Eurasian warfare was or less competitive. Empires don't need to advance much if they are fighting neighbors who are relatively weak. Also you don't want a high enemy body count if you need a constant supply of human sacrifices to keep the world from ending.
>>395856
LoL, okay buddy. I got my B.S. in physics in 2011.
>The consepts where not simple.
Yes they were. I already gave examples. Any concepts that you think are above most of the population are concepts that you just understand the theoretical underpinnings of.
>>395921
*just don't understand
Sorry.
>>395107
>there is nothing to say that other cultures could have conceptualized calculus, physics, biology, etc. to the degree Europeans did.
>>395107
>Europe isn't much more resource-rich than other continents.
Britain is. Lucky anglo bastards.
>>395083
>kike bullshit
Says that globalism will fail despite technology "making the world smaller", because geography and culture are still powerful forces. His arguments actually go against what people usually call "kike bullshit".
>>395855
Its probably One guy who posted a lot
Agriculture arose early in the near east and spread quickly east and west, eventually spreading to Europe, India, North and Northeast Africa, and Central Asia. Agriculture arose a bit later in China, and spread south to Southeast Asia. This early start to agriculture in the near east lead Egypt and Mesopotamia to built the first civilizations by 3000 BC. Civilization spread out from there and developed over the next 5000 years into Greco-Roman, Orthodox, Islamic, and Western civilizations, with the West eventually coming out on top while Islam stagnated and Orthodoxy declined. East Asia emerged as a civilization by 1500 BC, so it was about 1500 years behind Western Eurasia. It still created extremely prosperous civilizations, but was generally behind Western Eurasia due to its later start and geographic isolation. Indian civilization emerged around 600 BC. Constant interaction across Eurasia meant that every civilization shared ideas and technologies. For example, literacy spread from Egypt to every other Eurasian civilization after the Iron Age except for East Asia, gunpowder spread from China to Europe, iron working spread from Anatolia to everywhere else, etc. Ultimately Eurasian civilizations had much more time to develop, were more dynamic, and were more competitive than those elsewhere, with Western Eurasia in particular having the greatest advantage. Ultimately it most likely that either Western or Islamic civilization would emerge on top, but after 1200 AD the West was generally the most advanced.
>>395987
Native Americans had agriculture around 6000 BC, and gave rise to the Olmecs by 1000 BC and the Chavin about the same time (after an earlier false start at Caral-Supe). These civilizations arose much later than those in Eurasia, so they never had as much time to advance. What's more, unlike in Eurasia where the interaction between many civilizations lead to the rise and spread of new ideas, Mesoamerica and the Andes mostly existed in isolation, making them less dynamic. For example, Mesoamerican writing never spread to the Andes, and only a trickle of Andean metallurgy made it to Mesoamerica.
Cut-off from most developments in Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding the northeast) arose even later, with agriculture only emerging c. 2500 BC and not reaching southern Africa until about 300 AD. Independent civilization only arose in Nigeria about 1000 AD and didn't have much time to spread or develop. Direct influence from Eurasian civilization was mostly limited to the semi-arid Sahel region, and only after 800 AD.
>>395981
Yeah, but why would he delete most or all of his own posts? Did he do it all at once? What was he arguing itt?
>>395851
This is well established. Here's some of the things that were invented in China.
Paper, printing press, gunpowder/guns, the stirrup, the compass, porcelain , canal lock gates, fishing reels, hot-air balloons, the umbrella, mechanical clocks, crossbows, and paper money.
Obviously Europe pulled ahead, but between the fall of Rome and the late middle ages, China was far ahead of Europe or anywhere else. And Han China, which coexisted with Rome, was pretty comparable in technology and organization.
>>395851
About 600 AD - 1200 AD.
>>396028
You mean if East Asia was as big a shithole as the Middle East is today? I don't think it would make a difference seeing as China has been utter shit since the 19th century and has always been recognized for its history.
>>395851
>During the Spring and Autumn Period (722–481 BC), two revolutionary improvements in farming technology took place. One was the use of cast iron tools and beasts of burden to pull plows, and the other was the large-scale harnessing of rivers and development of water conservation projects. Sunshu Ao of the 6th century BC and Ximen Bao of the 5th century BC are two of the earliest hydraulic engineers from China, and their works were focused upon improving irrigation systems.[27] These developments were widely spread during the ensuing Warring States period (403–221 BC), culminating in the enormous Du Jiang Yan Irrigation System engineered by Li Bing by 256 BC for the State of Qin in ancient Sichuan. During the Eastern Jin (317–420) and the Northern and Southern Dynasties (420–589), land-use became more intensive and efficient, rice was grown twice a year and cattle began to be used for plowing and fertilization.
>In circa 750, 75% of China's population lived north of the river Yangtse, but by 1250, 75% of China's population lived south of the river Yangtse. Such large-scale internal migration was possible due to introduction of quick-ripening strains of rice from Vietnam suitable for multi-cropping.[28]
China had an agricultural revolution that drastically increased their population size. More specialists means more inventions. They were also pretty strict about keeping Chinese technology from the rest of the world, at least when it came to silk production. All those ideas only started to get out when the Mongols let gunpowder find its way to Europe and when European explorers started trading with China directly.
>>395630
So "leftists" believe a certain thing so therefore Jared Diamond must believe it too?
>>395998
>printing press
>guns
>stirrup
>compass
u focking wot
also they sucked at improving anything they conceptualized
fucking Portuguese had working guns a decade or two after getting gunpowder from the Chinese while the chinese were still firing off rocket sticks
>>396049
That's a pretty shitty generalization. Most inventions are improvements on old shit.
And yeah, China invented all of those independently, though I thought I heard the stirrup came from Mongolia.
>>393775
White people and Asians lucked the fuck out in the evolutionary coin toss. its not the fault of anyone. Just nature being nature. Not because their superior for that is subjective and purely up to opinion. They are just different and their differences have been beneficial in their progress.
Why dis arabs failed? Genetics?islam?bad position?
>>396086
Maybe because they are the two races that developed their racial traits living in a snowy wasteland for thousands of years? Maybe something about the bountiful summers and harsh winters motivated more forward thinking?
I don't think the difference in intelligence is that significant. I'm just brainstorming.
>>396102
Mongols.
I've heard that some Arabs still despise Mongols.
>>396102
Genetics
>>393867
Success can be boiled down to resources and ability to use those resources. Whites had resources and ability. Asians had ability but little resources due to their migration. Blacks have resources but no ability due to the lack of environmental pressures.
ok let me go kill myself real quick
>>396104
>Maybe something about the bountiful summers and harsh winters motivated more forward thinking?
The tropics have predictable drought and flood seasons.
>>395352
What.
No, someone genuinely retarded could never be an engineer. I get that you don't want to believe in literal inferiority, but they are. There's a rare savant, but those people can't apply their raw power creatively. Someone who can solve insane problems mentally, or catalogue everything they see, is about as useful as a basic computer. High level thinking involves fluidity and comprehension that extremely low level IQs legitimately do not have.
I'm not saying gas em all, sub-human scum. But living in a fantasy in which we can all achieve the same things given time is sheer delusion. You could perhaps apply the classic 'monkey-typewriter' situation, but that's only an argument for sheer chance. For most of these upper bound problems it doesn't even apply, because the lower bound would be unable to tell that they've solved it.
>>395995
You can piece together that he was going full pol, white oppression mode.
When the topic at hand really didn't call for it. It's not insulting white people to say that circumstances favored them, nor is it removing all of their agency.
>>393794
what language are we conversing in again?
>>396104
It is indeed very significant.
>>395451
I agree with this. I am actually a biochemist and I've had to read a lot of scientific papers. And my parents are geophysicists. My mom tells me she was never very smart, but she has made important contributions to gravity and magnetics at Shell regardless because as she tells me, she worked hard and long to understand the material. My parents told me this before getting into science, as did many of my biochemistry proffessors as a warning. There are few genuine geniuses, most scientists achieved their knowledge through hard work, and most are people of average intelligence. And also, most scientists work and learn more little by little every day. We have to make 1 million mistakes in biochemistry before discovering something real. It usually takes our entire careers to discover something big. Most reseach papers in our field are "well we discovered one more small fact about this molecule, maybe it will help cancer patients one day." Many scientific discoveries in medicine were discovered by blunders, cisplatin as I remember was one of these.
For the record, biochemistry is notoriously hard, and it was considered one of the most difficult degrees to get next to engineering and physics and mathematics.
>>396686
" Rosenberg decided to use an electromagnetic setup with platinum electrodes, a metal known to be inert. But before he added a continuous culture of mammalian cells whose chromosomes he wished to watch, he used E. coli to set the parameters of the experiment, turning on the electromagnet once the bacterial culture had reached a steady state. Soon after, the microbial population plummeted. Yet when he turned the electromagnet off, bacterial reproduction resumed. That in itself was interesting, but when Rosenberg examined the bacteria, he was startled--after exposure to the electromagnet, some had extended to 300 times their normal length! The cells had grown, but not divided.
The implications were clear--Rosenberg had found something that blocks cell division, and such a something might counter the out-of-control cell cycle that is cancer. But it wasn't the electrical field that stopped the bacterial cells from dividing. After conferring with chemists, Rosenberg and his colleagues realized that a chemical reaction had occurred between the ammonium chloride used as an electrolyte and the platinum of the electrodes. The product: dichlorodiamineplatinum"
We are still trying learn more, especially as to why Cisplain only works with certain types of cells in our body when they have cancer, and how we can overcome that. Its been years!
Here: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/19498/title/From-Basic-Research-to-Cancer-Drug--The-Story-of-Cisplatin/
>>396723
In the end, the number one thing I was told when interviewing for a research position in college was this: "Being a good scientist, above all else is curious. You can figure out all the equations but it doesn't mean anything to us if you don't ask questions. That is was we really want, we want people who keep asking questions."
In the end, I met fairly average people in intelligence, and people on the lower scale who made good grades and mastered organic chem equations galore. What matters if you study enough so you get it.
>>395994
>false start
Please die.
>>396515
No it isn't.
>>396758
Sorry I messed up on the grammar, funny thing, a lot of biochemists can write worth a damn. This is why we need peer review.
>>396760
What's your problem?
>>393827
Going off what op said, it would imply and all-white group would be more successful than an all-black group.
Would this still apply?
>>396491
American.
>>396491
Minors aren't allowed on this website, you should close the window.
>>396173
and disease.
>>394005
>entire claim is predicated on celebritynetworth.com (an unreliable source and they even state this themselves on their site) publishing such hokum
Not only that -- but how does one calculate the 'wealth' of a man who died hundreds of years ago? They also forgot to calculate the wealth of Marcus Crassus, Jakob Fugger, Medici family, etc. whole entire claim is hogwash.
>>393967
Half of whites have slanty eyes, you have to squint to avoid snow blindness.
Whites ain't called caucASIAN for nuffin anon.
>>396874
Do you even know what the word slant means?
>>393837
Could have been if the god damn mother fucking Spanish sons of bitches didn't genocide them
>>396906
Come off it, England. They got sick. End of discussion.
