What does Sup Forums think about the implications of this book?
What would you do if you found out that Neanderthals are biologically smarter than you but society is what differentiates superiority?
>inb4 the author is a Jew cant believe what he says
>inb4 "tl:dr"
What does Sup Forums think about the implications of this book?
Dylan Lopez
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
amazon.com
youtube.com
amazon.com
theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com
jstor.org
edisciplinas.usp.br
trypillia.com
jaymans.wordpress.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www1.udel.edu
emilkirkegaard.dk
twitter.com
Hunter Bell
Every chapter is a great example of confirmation bias.
In the introduction of the book Jared Diamond outlines his professional training as a biogeographer. He describes how he was working in Papua when a troubling question formed in his mind, prompted by another question from a friend. Why had his people developed advanced technology, while the people of New Guinea had not? This is what fostered his interest into anthropology and history, and prompted him to write the book. I do not know his thought process beyond that, other than what he has placed on paper. But as I've seen similar mistakes to these before, allow me to posit a guess.
When Jared Diamond began researching the anthropology of the New World civilizations, he appears to have read a few secondary sources, and then dove directly into the primary source material, specifically the accounts provided by the conquistadors. He would have noticed a problem right away – the version of events that modern historians gave in their books contradicted what the primary sources said. Diamond, thinking like a scientist, saw the primary sources as the raw data. Secondary sources were synthesis and interpretation. So naturally, he rejected the viewpoints of modern scholars as baseless, and took the accounts of the conquistadors at face value.
Jason Miller
Through this butchered rendering of history, he's arrived at a conclusion that he already had before he began writing: the European conquests in the Americas were an inevitable result of European superiority. And to Diamond, this superiority goes beyond the specific technologies that Europeans used, such as trans-atlantic sailing, weapons, and armor. By Diamond's reckoning, the difference between native civilizations and European ones was not simply a question of specific technologies and cultural idiosyncrasies; the native civilizations were categorically inferior. Their lack of specific technologies is equated with a lack of intellectual sophistication. The naiveté he ascribes to the Inca makes them seem like children who lacked the wisdom and experience of their more sophisticated European counterparts. They cowered helplessly in fear of their new European overlords, as the unstoppable conquistadors rolled through armies that outnumbered them 1,000 to 1 like a twelve-pound ball through bowling pins.
If the point of the book ("Yali's Question") can be paraphrased as "Why did Europe come to dominate the world?" Diamond's immediate answer delivered in Chapter 3 is, "because Europe was technologically and culturally superior." The rest of the book then tries to address "Why was Europe superior?" as if he has already solved the first part of the problem. He hasn't; he's twisted the Spanish conquest of the Inca empire into a strawman for advancing the idea of European superiority, and anybody who is actually educated on that topic can see it.
Nathan Morris
forgot the picture for good measure
Thomas Young
>He hasn't; he's twisted the Spanish conquest of the Inca empire into a strawman for advancing the idea of European superiority, and anybody who is actually educated on that topic can see it.
So are you pushing cultural relativism or what?
The normal Sup Forums point of disagreement is in the "why" part.
Jason Brown
Anyone with half a brain could tell you that great men, cultural movements and geography all contribute to the passage of history. He denies men or societies their agency. Confucius had nothing to do with the successes and failures of China, Christ had nothing to do with the successes and failures of Europe, it's all to do with the shape of their coastlines. Muhammad? Martel? Fuck off. Look at the coal reserves.
He's a STEM autist who thinks history is a problem to solve.
It's utter trash.
Ian Rivera
Well, the typical counter to that is the difference between taming and domesticating. Elephants and lions can be trained, but they are not domesticated animals.
Most of the book is just common sense stuff, though. You're not going to domesticate horses if you live on an island without horses, right?
What pisses me off is that he still tries to blame the White Man for being evil, even though his whole thesis is that European world conquest was inevitable.
Aaron Thompson
>but they are not domesticated animals
Maybe if the niggers had started thousands of years ago like the white man did with dogs that would not be the case
Justin Carter
those things sound pretty fucking similar. taming over decades would result in domestication, all you have to do is raise them when they are young.
Noah Green
I think means domesticated in the sense that civilization can utilize the animal for growth i.e milk, meat, labor, not the cat sleeps at the door domesticated.
Owen Price
So maybe they didn't have horses, but most animal farm labour is done by cattle, and cattle have been around in SSA for thousands of years. The Americas had much less ideal animals, but much more advanced societies.
I mean very few animals were domesticated in Europe but we just used he ones that were domesticated in the middle east.
Nolan Jenkins
...
Asher Cook
...
Ayden Anderson
get that weak shit outta here
David Sanders
I find the criticisms of the books by "experts". Usually they are historians, who are naturally pretty biased against deterministic theories of history. After all, they spend all day reading about great individuals and events. It's easy to lose track of the big picture and the general trends and forces that shape our world, which are mostly invisible to history. Anthropologists aren't as harsh on it, and are the correct field to ask about theories like this.
Most of the criticisms attack relatively minor points in the book that aren't really that important to the main thesis. It's possible it isn't completely correct, and yet it still explains a lot and is one of the most insightful things I've ever read.
Oliver Moore
yea it does lack sources, i noticed that but most of the shit he says can be verified to be real or jewish conjecture, and so far I haven't found anything that is outright wrong.
Luke Flores
...
Jordan Bailey
>What does Sup Forums think about the implications of this book?
We've debunked the bullshit in this book too many times to count already. The author admits from the very start that he's basically going to do whatever it takes to deny that the white race got ahead because we are smarter. He then proceeds to ignore everything in the world that contradicts his bullshit theory, including countless domesticable plants and animals that niggers were too stupid to utilize.
Connor Martin
fuck yea dude
Aiden Rogers
You are so fucking stupid I don't even know what to do.
Jackson Sullivan
why is that
Sebastian Bennett
>very few animals were domesticated in Europe
Exactly. Cattle farming spread to sub-Saharan Africa too, which is how the Bantu tribes wiped out the San and others. They were pretty adept at iron working too. Japan and Korea were pretty much medieval feudal societies until relatively recently, but now they're the most advanced countries on earth. People go on about how "niggers can't domesticate" while ignoring that pretty much all our domesticated plants and animals were introduced to us from outside Europe. If Europe had been isolated completely, and the Sahara had not existed, history would have turned out differently.
Austin Powell
Because you're demonstrably incorrect? Because this ground has been sufficiently covered? Because all of Diamond's basic theses are false and have been proved to be so?
>diamond: it was geographic luck
>science: no actually it was evolutionary biology
>fags, niggers, and other retards: hurr durr racism
>diamond: see i told you
Kayden Collins
Ok, well back up what your saying, link me to your demonstation
Juan Ortiz
It can be found here:
Jason Bailey
Does it explain why Natives are still shit?
Elijah Martin
The Indians killed all their horses
Jason Sullivan
None of the stuff in that pic is backed up by any independent source.
Aaron Thomas
When you've defended something a thousand times, the thousand and first is extremely tedious. So just read the fucking jpg
Brandon James
>Anyone with half a brain could tell you that great men, cultural movements and geography all contribute to the passage of history.
Yes.
>Confucius had nothing to do with the successes and failures of China
Perhaps. Confucian thought was always a matter of contention in China and you have to quantifiable show that China followed Confucian thought and it lead to success.
>Christ had nothing to do with the successes and failures of Europe
Probably not, since Christ really has nothing to do with Europe and some of the most successful European powers were Greece and Rome, pagan powers.
Like Confucius, you'd first have to go into detail how exactly Christ (or Christ's teachings) affected Europe and quantifiable demonstrate that it helped Europe succeed. Again, this is showing Christ's teachings and not necessarily the structure and political web that the Latin Church brought, and again, the Latin Church was simply reestablishing the network that pagan Rome had founded, as there doesn't seem to be anything in the Bible to suggest geopolitics.
>it's all to do with the shape of their coastlines
True, it is absurd.
>Muhammad
Arguably the most influential and important figure that you've mentioned.
>Martel
Probably could have been replaced by any other warrior-king Frank, honestly.
>It's utter trash.
Agreed.
William Powell
Most of it is common knowledge or a Google search, you low agency faggot
Leo Baker
muh long continents vs tall continents
Cooper Rogers
Did you read it? Do you need a independent source to know that Genghis Khan has created a huge empire and that with a tribal civilization? You're just a low IQ moron.
Kevin Allen
Well this is my first time cocksucker, so I would like some evidence to see why you're so vindictive.
>It gets tedious
well then your argument is weak as hell to the point that you have to talk your way through it to win when we are discussing established fact
Mason Cox
DoDomesticated animals are just animals that were tamed and breed by humans for centuries in order to fulfill human needs.
Angel Price
>Usually they are historians, who are naturally pretty biased against deterministic theories of history.
Because deterministic views of history are simplistic and often cherry pick to create a grand narrative.
Honestly, the only determination worth its weight is biological determination just for the fact that it's obvious that certain races like Aboriginals and Negroids are probably not even human.
>After all, they spend all day reading about great individuals and events
No, we spend all day reading various criticisms and interpretations of great events and great men.
>It's easy to lose track of the big picture
What big picture? There's too much data to make useful inferences about the big picture when archaeology presents us with thousands of new sites PER DAY.
>the general trends and forces that shape our world
Honestly? European and East Asian genetics, and to a lesser extent, Western culture. There's your big picture.
>which are mostly invisible to history
They're not invisible to history, they're just extremely complex.
>Anthropologists aren't as harsh on it
Because anthropologists are pseudo-scientists that think their musings and rosy-colored glasses view of "non-literate" people are somehow justified to get funding. Fuck anthropology.
>and are the correct field to ask about theories like this.
Absolutely not, because when anthropology examines past societies they are incredibly biased since they compare past societies that we know nothing about except a series of stains designating postholes and pits and then project what Papa New Guineans do onto people that lived 130,000 years ago a half a world away.
>Most of the criticisms attack relatively minor points in the book that aren't really that important to the main thesis
The main thesis is that geographical determination only makes sense if you ignore the literal tens of thousands of examples of humans doing contra to what their environment tells them to do.
Asher Nguyen
>why didn't Europeans hunt horses, cows and sheep to extinction?
Because domesticated cows and sheep were introduced by near-eastern farmers? He specifically mentions in the book how large animals which had never encountered humans before, when suddenly faced with humans with advanced hunting techniques (Americans and Australia were settled relatively recently) were at a big disadvantage.
Not to mention that woolly mammoths, woolly rhinoceros, saber-toothed tiger, lions, etc. DID go extinct. Europeans never domesticated them. Have you actually read the book?
Lincoln Adams
>Due to the Anna Karenina principle, surprisingly few animals are suitable for domestication. Diamond identifies six criteria including the animal being sufficiently docile, gregarious, willing to breed in captivity and having a social dominance hierarchy. Therefore, none of the many African mammals such as the zebra, antelope, cape buffalo, and African elephant were ever domesticated (although some can be tamed, they are not easily bred in captivity). The Holocene extinction event eliminated many of the megafauna that, had they survived, might have become candidate species, and Diamond argues that the pattern of extinction is more severe on continents where animals that had no prior experience of humans were exposed to humans who already possessed advanced hunting techniques (e.g. the Americas and Australia).
Zachary Moore
I browse /r/badhistory, too. Good sub.
Hudson Morris
>and yet it still explains a lot
My comment was too long.
No, it really explains nothing, and it hasn't explained anything that geographical determinists weren't attempting to explain 50, 60, or even 100 years ago.
>one of the most insightful things I've ever read.
Dude, it's a pop history book.
Here, I'll disprove Diamond with one article.
Let's take Britain. Britain is an island. Britain is known for its fish, right?
For a period of over 1000 years, most people living on Britain did not eat fish. Well why the fuck not? There is plenty of fish to eat.
Except they didn't. Sometimes, humans don't do what geography dictates.
www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/120856.pdf
Aaron Parker
Dude, they basically managed to domesticate foxes over several generations with selective breeding.
You can only domesticate animals over long periods of time, and at that point it's no longer the same animal in the first place. Properly domesticated zebra is tame zebra with huge tits.
Asher Lopez
The book is circular reasoning braindead nonsense.
The book summed up:
>here in Europe we see that X animal has been domesticated
>therefore X animal could only be domesticated because it COULD be domesticated
>see it's just their environment that gave them their advantage
>here in Africa Y animal hasn't been domesticated
>therefore Y animal CAN'T be domesticated because it hasn't been domesticated
>see they couldn't amount to anything because their environment
Repeat for every other argument.
Josiah Nguyen
Caleb Lewis
>including the animal being sufficiently docile
Fucking assanges and horses were NOT docile, and cows came from literal aurochs that were known to kill people as late the 18th century. Then you have pigs which came from boar and dogs which came from wolves, animals NOT docile. The domestic cat came form the wildcat which again is not fucking docile.
GOD I HATE THAT FUCKING BIOLOGIST GET OUT OF MY HISTORY
Christopher Johnson
Show me domesticated zebras, then. Nigs can use horses, injuns use horses, have any European God-men domesticated the zebra? Scientists in Russia "domesticating" foxes in a lab for fun is not the same as trying to domesticate a zebra. They are fundamentally different from horses.
William Phillips
That's fine and dandy. Fuck zebras. Let's talk about wolves, boars and aurochs.
Carter Jones
>131924126
theres no reason to domesticate zebras now. why would anyone? thats a stupid request on your part.
Kevin Rogers
>Show me domesticated zebras, then.
There is no domesticated zebra because there was no white man around zebra.
Why are you discarding a valid principle when the subject isn't around whites? Your view in a nutshell:
>Is animal near whites? It can be domesticated
>Is animal near blacks? It can't be domesticated
That's just you shoehorning your conclusion and breaking any principle that stands in the way. Many such cases!
Carter Sullivan
Oh wow, it's not like we haven't been over this 10,000 fucking times
Dylan Morales
This. Only meme biologists would try. If they actually could serve a unique phrpose, they would have been domesticated centuries ago
Cooper Jackson
Reddits history subs will literally call you bad history if you disagree with a concept or interpretation of the same source. Its just more pretentious lefties who think their opinions are some kind of authority of truth.
Connor White
What's a better alternative to this book to read that is Sup Forums approved?
Dylan Thomas
the book is complete and utter shit, devoid of any ruth or intelligent thought.
Tyler Young
yea im with this guy
Wyatt Perry
read a few pages, then thought 'geez this guy is a nigger apologist' and put down the book with extreme prejudice. seemed like he was doing extreme mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that native americans are just fucking retarded.
Brody Murphy
I guess you can go with VDH. He's a neocon cuck and doesn't believe in race but his main argument
>Culture is more important than geography
And
>The west won through militaristic culture handed down from Greeks
And also
>Western culture is a rejection of Eastern culture, IE doing the opposite
youtube.com
Debate of VHD vs Diamond
Levi Miller
This line of thinking about why civilizations succeeded or failed is extremely interesting, but I do not want to resign myself to reading half-assed kike propaganda
Andrew King
Samuel Adams
Anyone with any sense can see that Europe is technologically and culturally superior. Where were the non-Europeans' guns? Military tradition of organized and professional armies? Military logistics that allowed military supplies to be supplied anywhere in the world? Unified government? Institutionalized research? Institutionalized healthcare? Institutionalized education? Ship-building techniques that could traverse oceans? Naval culture that allowed coordinated naval battles? Modern diplomacy and formal treaties? Metallurgy capable of mass-producing steel? Steam/Combustion Engines? ETC. ETC. ETC.
European culture and technology was objectively superior to any other in the world. That was why all the countries that had any contact with Europeans (Turks, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) willingly and consciously remodeled their entire societies, from the top down, reorganizing EVERYTHING along European lines. The entire world, right now, is living according to European culture. Each country has some of the superficial trappings of their original culture, some food and dance that they uphold that they claim makes them unique, but all institutions and systems of leadership, and the knowledge and technology that make them possible, are entirely European inventions.
What Jared Diamond's flaw is, is claiming that Europe had some inherent advantage over the rest of the world that made it develop quicker. Compared to other places in the world (such as the fertile parts of middle east or Africa), Europe was colder, had more acidic soil, more rocky and mountainous terrain, and was therefore less adapted to agriculture without special techniques developed by Europeans through trial and error over centuries. Europeans also settled in Europe long after civilizations were settled in the middle east, so were at a disadvantage to start. Etc. Etc. Etc.
What is the unique character of Europe that made it superior? The Aryan race.
Blake Wilson
What animals have you mentioned that were domesticated by whites?
Not pigs, not cattle (a single event in the near east, and another in India), not sheep, not the donkey... not wheat or barley or emmer, either. If anything the claim should be if it's around brown people or chinks it can be domesticated.
Cooper Watson
Lol at the great man theory. Caesar or Napoleon would've been eaten by kangaroos if they were born in Australia in 4000 BC
Brody Gomez
So I guess the Japanese and Koreans are superior to whites? That the Roman race was superior to the German in Roman times, the German race was superior in the 19th and 20th centuries, and now they're more or less equal? That Scandinavians were on the same level as Bantu niggers for thousands of years, but as soon as civilization was brought to them, their race improved? It should be remembered that the foundations of civilization were introduced to Europe from the outside - agriculture, writing, building techniques, pretty much everything you can think of.
Ayden Evans
>le blacks and chinks domesticated everything
Why then use exactly the opposite reasoning for why blacks did not succeed?
We dun stole their domestication or what?
Hunter Gutierrez
>It should be remembered that the foundations of civilization were introduced to Europe from the outside
Today's Europeans were introduced to Europe from the outside you dumb fucking pleb. Less than 50% of our DNA is proto-european.
Benjamin Martin
>Japanese
Japan was never, ever superior to Europe, neither was Korea. China was just comparable and never superior either.
>now they're more or less equal
For the most part, yes.
>That Scandinavians were on the same level as Bantu niggers for thousands of years
No, they weren't.
>but as soon as civilization was brought to them, their race improved?
Races have different capacities to receive civilization. The proof is the modern world.
>foundations of civilization were introduced to Europe from the outside
Perhaps. We really don't know at this point.
>agriculture
Maybe, right now the multiple origin theory is in vogue though. Quite possible that agriculture sprang up in Europe simultaneously with the East as it did in China.
>writing
Maybe, but it was the Greeks that introduced the vowel and the Latins that perfected writing anyway.
>building techniques
Haha, no.
>pretty much everything you can think of.
No, not concrete, the column, the arch. Arguably the wheel, chariot and bronze working all originated in Europe.
Angel Sanchez
>What is the unique character of Europe that made it superior? The Aryan race.
Cont'd
The Aryan race has several qualities that make it a creative race, that is, one capable of creating an innovative yet stable society. The Aryan himself is physically fit, naturally strong, and naturally intelligent compared to other races. Culturally, they are conquerors, believe in bravery, justice and devotion to community. Every religion founded by Aryans believes in life after death, that there is some sort of final reward that awaits the brave and just.
In history, wherever the Aryan went, he conquered the locals, and created a new culture, a new system of leadership, new religions and institutions. In India, he created Hinduism and the caste system. In Persia, he created Zoroastrianism and the empire. These cultures existed in a golden age until the races became too muddied and the original genetic qualities were lost. However, in Europe, the Aryans proliferated in isolation for a long time, and then when they mixed, only mixed with people who were already similar to them such as the Celts. Today, the English, French, Germans, Scandinavians, North Italians, etc. are the purest manifestation of the original Aryan race.
While the other races currently use Aryan culture for their own benefit, they are incapable of improving on it. They lack the creative power of the Aryan race. If the Aryan race is destroyed, then either civilization will remain stagnant, as it is now forever, or it will sink back into barbarism as the other races slowly revert to their native systems of government and culture and reject "westernism" as foreign.
Jackson King
The book is a joke. It contradicts itself. He claims that different groups of hominids, living in different environments for thousands of generations, somehow developed their brains at the same rate, and in the same way. As proven by.....absolutely nothing. My favorite joke was when he claimed that certain nations were less developed because they did not have craggy coastlines where intellectuals could hide from those who wanted to kill them for being smart. Incredible as this insanity was....some people BELIEVE it.
David Brown
>We dun stole their domestication or what?
Yep. Blacks invented everything and then we stole it and they never figured out how to remake things.
Blake Powell
Jewish propaganda
Sebastian Bennett
In this book Diamond states that all races are equally intelligent, except for Papua New Guineans, who are smarter than the rest of mankind.
He's insane.
Gabriel Gonzalez
This book was referenced at least 2 times in A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline by Hoppe so I've been meaning to pick it up when I am finished with Hoppe in general.
Camden James
Kike written. Just look at the author!
Now realize everything contained with in will need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Kikes never change!
Gavin Edwards
>So I guess the Japanese and Koreans are superior to whites?
How so?
>That the Roman race was superior to the German in Roman times, the German race was superior in the 19th and 20th centuries, and now they're more or less equal?
The Romans were originally Italo-Celts who adopted Greek culture. The Italo-Celts were originally neighbors of the Aryans during the nomadic prehistoric period, and there was considerable crossover between them. Also, the Italo-Celts and Greeks settled a fertile area with lots of trade and cultural exposure to the mediterranean civilizations. The Germanics settled in frost-bitten northern wilderness and started out farther behind than the other civilizations due to a weaker agriculture; however, they had kings, metalworking, coins, roads, sanitation standards, etc. As far as "barbarians" go, they were very advanced. However, they advanced very quickly and adopted the best qualities of Roman culture. They also routinely defeated Roman armies on the battlefield. However, in the later eras of the Roman Empire and into the end of antiquity and onwards, the legacy of Rome has always lied in the Germanic race (and also the Greeks in the East), not in the Italians. The Italians, as time went on, only became less and less relevant within their own Empire.
>That Scandinavians were on the same level as Bantu niggers for thousands of years, but as soon as civilization was brought to them, their race improved?
As said before, Scandinavia is probably the geographically worst part of the world (aside from, say, the Sahara desert) for a civilization to begin. The fact that it happened at all is astonishing and a testament to their tenacity and powers to adapt.
>It should be remembered that the foundations of civilization were introduced to Europe from the outside - agriculture, writing, building techniques, pretty much everything you can think of
Fugg, too long
Joseph Roberts
rekt
Grayson Ward
Kikes like Kuru and cannibalism.
Look what they did to their Clinton pets threw spirit cooking.
Alexander Hill
by
Daniel Taylor
>perhaps, we don't know
>maybe
>maybe
Pretty desperate there, user. You really think agriculture started in Europe? ALL of our domesticated animals and plants came from brown people in the near east. Go back to archiving links, Norge.
Nolan Young
civilization has since been brought to the bantu niggers, yet they're still niggers, so obviously this is a stupid argument
Zachary Thompson
This is the best actually political discussion thread I've seen on Sup Forums for awhile. GJ guys
Justin Brooks
>>It should be remembered that the foundations of civilization were introduced to Europe from the outside - agriculture, writing, building techniques, pretty much everything you can think of
>Fugg, too long
Agriculture was developed independently in many different places in the world, and is largely a product of environment. It doesn't take a genius to take a seed and plant it; what it does require is knowledge of the plant, the soil and the conditions for growth, which is entirely locally-dependent. Figs and dates and other Mediterranean fruits won't grow in, say, Norway.
>writing
The Aryans invented this in Persia and in India. The Aryans that settled in Europe also independently invented a writing system based on Runes. Their unique writing system was never brought to them. However, the runes were eventually replaced by the latin alphabet.
>building techniques
There was no need for masonry in early Germanic society, as their principle instrument of construction was wood. They later on would develop architectural techniques such as gothic architecture, which would allow construction of buildings of unprecedented size and majesty.
Dylan Cook
(((Diamond)))
Owen Turner
Subsaharan blacks are more impulsively aggressive than whites or any other race.
It's literally in their DNA.
theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com
Ryan James
>Pretty desperate there
It's not desperate, it's called being impartial. There is ongoing research all the time.
IE agriculture multiregional theory
jstor.org
Metal working in Europe
edisciplinas.usp.br
Trypillian culture first possible cities
trypillia.com
>domesticated animals
No, pig, cow and horse originated in Europe.
>and plants
Not plants, the argument is the methods of agriculture spread.
Josiah Bailey
Its actually completely false to claim that these societies did not domesticate animals or plants when in fact Africa was one of the first continents where both were domesticated.
Levi King
Now, to clarify, I am not saying that the Aryans are the only race in the world capable of advancement and stability, but they are the greatest (with my witness being the past 1000 years of human history). The Aryan is almost solely responsible for all the technologies and ideas that comprise the modern era and our current way of life that is practiced in all first world nations.
Other countries such as China and Japan built functioning and interesting cultures, but the Aryans did eventually surpass them by far.
Wyatt Lee
By my reading:
He says he wrote the book to dispel the notion the Europeans were genetically superior (as a jew this is normal unless of course you are talking about a European Jew then in that case they are superior).
He then goes into explain that because of Animal Domestication and Crop production the Eurasion peoples were able to expand. Nothing genetically superior was the reason according to him.
He then spends the rest of the book looking for reasons to support his arguement and ignoring the obvious.
Yes farming and animal domestication were the start of the great civilizations in Euroasia. But then he ignores the evolutionary preasures living in civilization causes. Particularly specialization and the punishment of short termed thinking. To believe that in 3000 years of Euroasian civilization no evolution of these peoples is just stupid.
All the evidence for why Europeans crushed the rest of the world is outlined but ignored.
1. Euroasian intelligence base line
2. Physical size and makeup
3. Animal domestication
4. Disease immunity for Animal Domestication and Plagues
5. Climate that weeds the weak and stupid out but no so bad to impact population levels
6. The idea of the individual which is why they defeated the chinese and indians who had advantages. He actually outlines how the chinese started to explore sea lanes but then some ruler decided he did not want to and the stopped. So everyone stopped. The competing groups in Europe ensured someone would say fuck you I am going to go look.
Also you can read the absolute disdain he has for white people. I don't think there is one positive interaction he has with white people. They are all over aggressive drunkards.
(topics like this are why I come to pol)
Elijah Harris
IQ and GDP per Capita have a correlation of 0.84
In statistical analysis, a correlation above 0.5 is considered "strong".
Wyatt Martinez
The correlation becomes even stronger (0.91) when we use the "smart fraction" as an indicator - the proportion of the population with a 'gifted' IQ - rather than overall IQ average.
Racial clustering becomes even more intense at this level.
Either way, 0.84 or 0.91, the correlation is extremely strong and indicates to us intelligence (and thus race) is the prime factor in determining a nation's success.
Brandon Collins
so from reading this thread, I see that this book is about animals. Then why is it called Guns Germs and Steel>
William Sullivan
Correlation doesn't imply causation. It could be that IQ determines a nation's success or a nation's sucess determines IQ. The latter seems to be more likely since a malnourished population WILL score lower on an IQ test.
Josiah Miller
Malnutrition during foetal development will only permanently lower the child's IQ by up to 15 points. Places in subsaharan Africa have an average IQ as low as 60. That's 40 below the European average.
There is also poverty in Europe. For instance, Ukraine was the target of engineered famine. It is also one of the poorest countries in Europe, yet its IQ is not significantly lower than the norm.
Furthermore, there are places like China that have been subjected to mass famines, and have an IQ of 105, which is slightly higher than the European average.
Benjamin Kelly
See:
jaymans.wordpress.com
>In national data using Dutch military recruits examined at age 18 years, Z.A. Stein and colleagues (120) found no association between prenatal famine exposure and the prevalence of either mild or severe mental retardation or a decrease in IQ as estimated from mean scores on the Raven progressive matrices test. Because of the nature of the sample and the number of individuals available for study, the findings make a convincing case for the absence of long-lasting effects up to young adulthood, at least in males.
Connor Hernandez
Good post.
Let's back this up some more, just because I have these sources on hand.
Lincoln Morales
Also, violence and crime is determined by race
Justin James
...
Jordan Russell
Also, the correlation with success and average IQ is EIGHT TIMES stronger for nations than it is for individual success and IQ.
That means, intelligent races will generally form successful cultures.
However, we also saw that Europe surpassed Northeast Asia, despite a nominally higher IQ in the case of the latter. That shows that IQ is not the only factor in the development of a successful culture, but it is a good place to start.
Colton Evans
>Correlation doesn't imply causation.
You are parroting that phrase without looking at the issue. It's not just a correlation between countries.
We also know...
1. Blacks in the West score lower on IQ than Whites and East Asians, across all income levels and groups.
2. Blacks have a lower cranial capacity than Whites and East Asians.
3. Blacks have a lower cortical neuron count than Whites and East Asians.
4. Blacks have a slower reaction time compared to Whites and East Asians.
5. The majority of IQ experts polled in 1988 agreed that the Black-White IQ gap cannot be explained by environmental causes alone.
We have an understanding of how Human intelligence works, and a pretty solid consensus based by research data that Blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. The only reason that this data - widely known among psychologists, IQ experts and evolutionary biologists - hasn't reached the mainstream is because it would not be politically correct to do so, and most mass consumption media editors oppose its publicacion and its findings.
So we are not talking about a blind correlation here, but a correlation that backs and adds up 30 years of research on the matter.
Sources:
www1.udel.edu
Thirty Years of Research on Racial Differences in Cognitive Ability
by J.P Rushton and Arthur Jensen
(2005)
emilkirkegaard.dk
The I.Q. Controversy, Media and Public Policy
by Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman
(1988)