Sub Saharan Africans never invented complex societies because the region had no domesticable crops with productivity comparable to large seed cereal grains such as wheat, corn, or barley, and because the warm climate full of huge herds of large herbivores was an environment that led to cultural stagnation of the hunter gatherer lifestyle. NOT because of low IQs due to genetics.
Prove me wrong.
Other urls found in this thread:
unz.com
southafrica.info
washingtonpost.com
nap.edu
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
takepart.com
twitter.com
You're not wrong but because of the vast difference in time they now have lower IQ's in comparison to us. It's only due to genetics in the same way that smart people make smart children (in most cases)
Congrats you figured it out.
I thought it was because of mosquitos...
unz.com
Then why didn't they ever domesticate the countless species of big game like the europeans did? Why are their iqs still low even when they spend centuries in countries that have grain? Why didn't they ever try to grow fruits and similar foods?
They're retarded. Stop lying to yourself and accept it.
>huge herds of herbivores
>couldn't domesticate any of them
CITE ONE RESEARCH PAPER THAT WASN"T WRITTEN BY AN (((AUTHOR))).
>no selection pressures for intel whence and planning complex systems of agriculture as you just pointed out
>no microevolutio not sub Saharan Africans
>all metrics of intelegence confirms this
You really did figure it out. Just don't put the cart in front of the horse, user.
Are you retarded OP? Of course its because they have low IQ's, look at the fucking Mongolians. Their environmental situation is and was 10000x worse than the niggers. Yet due to the Asians naturally high IQ, they were smart enough to live off horses, domesticated goats and grain.
Your wrong. Its because niggers are stupid I know the truth hurts but your going to have to accept it one day like I did.
South Africa Has a climate that is great for farming . The natives were too busy slaughtering eachother to farm. .southafrica.info
>Prove me wrong
If you understood how logical induction works, you'd realise you have proven yourself wrong with your own statement.
Uh, that's a theory, it's not proven.
>He thinks Europeans were the ones to domesticate animals
Euro's didn't do much of shit, they just adopted it all from Middle Easterners. And animals came after crops. Hard to tame animals when you have no crops to farm, dipshits.
He doesn't know that culture can spread from it's origin location to shitty environments where it could never originate on it's own
They didn't have a crop suitable to create farming societies.
There may be an IQ difference, but my point was that it wasn't the cause of the huge difference in cultural advancement.
You see, they have farms. The soil is primed for crop rotation. They took these farms by force. But now they want the White man to come back because they don't understand how growing works.
>your
You certainly have used a lot of big words there.
But what does it all mean?
Teach me...I want to learn.
Blacks as a whole account for 2 billion of the world's population and have large communities all over the world in a large variety of regions. Yet, they are almost all exclusively poor, violent and uneducated wherever they are be it South America, North America, Africa, Asia, etc.
>Uh, that's a theory, it's not proven.
I'm not sure if understand what the word "theory" means, especially in scientific or academic terms. A theory can be a fact; there's no contradiction in that. So you probably shouldn't use that word in the future in this context. It's too loaded and it confuses the debate. You're better off saying "hypothesis".
He needs to learn to write, first. Almost everyone in this thread does.
The development of farming societies required the reward of farming greater than the reward of simply hunting and gathering. Certain places on earth, like the middle east, had wild plants that gave good rewards when farmed. The wild ancestors of wheat and corn provided far more calories than most plants. Over time, as the hunter gatherers learned how to farm them, they became even more productive to due selective breeding. From there, all the other aspects of farming like domestication of animals, increased advancement of technology, creation of complex social hierarchies, writing, etc, were created. Because sub saharan Africa had barely any plants suitable for domestication, and because their warm, stable climate with plentiful wild game provided them with pretty much everything they needed, they did not advance nearly as much as other societies.
Problem is, they have adapted to reflect the necessities of their environment, so they are fleet of foot and generally athletic, but haven't developed in terms of complex reasoning and creativity
>no domesticable crops
Shit, you just reminded me that I forgot to walk my Barley this morning.
I think blacks can be smart, they just dont try
...
Sub-Saharan Africans are admixed with a mystery hominin and have basal chimp alleles. Y-DNA haplogroup a00, found among Sub-Saharan makes including African Americans where it was first observed, is older than genetically and anatomically modern humans.
The entire recent African origin of Homo sapiens is under fire now that it looks like Y-DNA haplogroup E is the result of a backwards migration from Asia into Africa.
Sub-Saharans are literally hybrids between an archaic human and archaic non-human. That puts them in non-human territory. Their lack of accomplishments and advancements and overall academic achievement as well as degenerate criminal culture are a result of this
Asians weren't as isolated as sub Saharan Africans. You can't equate a super isolated environment with an environment that was able to interact with the middle east and Europe thru out its development.
There's an overwhelmingly strong correlation between primitive societies and low IQ.
You're not worth proving wrong.
Yes but we have leisure because of domesticable crops, which we have exploited as a society so that very few actually have to grow these
That's because environment influences IQ For example the lead and fetal alcohol exposure courtesy of your redneck slut mom resulted in your low IQ.
...
So you admit that blacks have low IQ yet you don't want to conclude that low IQ means shit society?
Do you really believe intelligence has nothing to do with how good society is? Thats just bat shit insane.
I know. I just taught my domesticated Barley how to fetch me beers and tendies from the fridge. How can other regions compete with this kind of technology? They'll never catch up.
Are you a cumdumpster? You can literally rationalize anything.
Rationalize how socialism works in light of Venezuelans being so starved that they resort to breaking into zoos to kill and eat the animals. That happened today.
the herds of herbivores prevented the IQ development
I understand your logic its just wrong.
it doesn't matter how much a chicken studies, it will get smarter but it will reach a biological limit.
Check the Minnesota transracial study as proof that blacks will never be as smart as whites.
You may have discovered sarcasm, but it is true that western society is significantly based on its ability over centuries to cultivate grains. Actually all major civilizations have been.
Technology springs from leisure created from food surplus, and indeed the fridge is a product of our need to store surplus food.
Explain Japan then. They were very isolated for a long time and that was when they were most culturally developed.
Where did you go OP?
Look up what a feedback loop is.
a crop is domesticatable when it's domesticated. If there were no edible plants in Africa, then there would be no herbivorous creatures there, which is simply not true.
even native americans did it with corn and shit. Corn didn't start out tasty and yielding a ton of food per seed, it had to be cultivated for generations.
here's a short list of native african plants that could have easily been staple crops by now, had they been properly cultivated 2000 years ago
nap.edu
>the warm climate full of huge herds of large herbivores was an environment that led to cultural stagnation of the hunter gatherer lifestyle. NOT because of low IQs due to genetics.
there are pastoral people who domesticated "herds of large herbivores" and lived a static lifestyle regardless. of course africans never domesticated any animal, either, and that must be because of racism.
So intelligence isn't the cause of technological advancement?
Or perhaps you are saying that IQ isn't hereditary. If that is the case you are denying evolution.
Please though, debate me on whether or not evolution is real.
They have low IQ because they never became civilized. They never became civilized because they lived in an environment that was unsuitable to create farming and they were to isolated to gain access to culture that did invent farming.
That's only relevant relative to modern times, and there's no solid evidence to how important it is.
What about them? They brought advanced culture to the island, then became isolated. This is about how advanced culture originates.
Lower IQ is a factor - but as we all know, Semitic people with lower IQ had Civilization before Caucasian/"white" people.
>complex societies and agriculture INCREASED IQ from higher to deal with colder climate already to even higher
You read Guns, Germs and Steel for Cuckoldery 101 at the local college. Great job user! You really made me think!
You should consider reading more than the summary of one book on the subject.
Maybe I should change my VPN provider.
>If there were no edible plants in Africa, then there would be no herbivorous creatures there, which is simply not true.
>even native americans did it with corn and shit. Corn didn't start out tasty and yielding a ton of food per seed, it had to be cultivated for generations.
>here's a short list of native african plants that could have easily been staple crops by now, had they been properly cultivated 2000 years ago
I already addressed this. The native african crops were inferior to the staples crops of other societies. It would have taken them 5x as long to reach the same result.
>there are pastoral people who domesticated "herds of large herbivores" and lived a static lifestyle regardless. of course africans never domesticated any animal, either, and that must be because of racism.
No society domesticated animals without having domesticated crops first. Reindeer don't count, they arent truly domesticated.
This, liberal cocksuckers
OK, that's fair.
So why did the amerindians never become civilized?
>hey have low IQ because they never became civilized. They never became civilized because they lived in an environment that was unsuitable to create farming and they were to isolated to gain access to culture that did invent farming.
Nobody is arguing against this. We all know the reason they are retarded is because they never had to begin farming societies.
However, farming was not just an accident that occurred one day which just happened to make the white people have much higher IQ.
At the end of the day you admit they have genetically lower IQ.
If you believe that a group of low IQ people that have less IQ than koko the gorilla can magically increase their IQ if they were born in the west you are wrong. This is like claiming koko would be as smart as the average white if it was raised as a child in the west.
Do you also think an australopithecus could be as smart as a modern white human if it was raised by a white human in a white society?
?
>They have low IQ because they never became civilized
They have low IQ because Africa (south of Sahara) is where humans are meant to live. The people that moved out, had to adapt, and the smartest are the ones that adapt first - and get smarter off-spring.
>No society domesticated animals without having domesticated crops first
dogs
This may be true but you have no proof of how much, and then you make the presumption that it's the main factor. And then you ignore that fact while society can favor higher IQ it also can favor the opposite, while dumb hunter gatherers in their more dangerous conditions need to have a certain level of IQ to survive.
Then we came along, performed the first heart transplant surgery, and had nukes.
Fuck off you dindu apologist.
But the societies in middle east were Caucasian people. They still are Caucasian.
They only just separated from whites 1500 years ago.
you mean 15000
I have read somewhere that hunting and tracking animals are not tied to IQ.
Academic difference; had they either, they would make the other.
>British prisoners get dumped off into an inhospitable desert in Australia
>somehow they build advanced civilization within a matter of 100 years
>niggers have all of Africa, one of the most resource-rich lands in all the world - yet still can't get out of their mud huts
kill yourself
So you shilled in a thread earlier, and after like an hour or two you decided that it was such a good shitpost that you had to make a thread of your own. Ok OP.
No because in society you need to be smarter than hunter gatherers to survive. You need to figure out ways to make yourself valuable to that society or you will be fucked.
It take modern people 8+ years to figure out how they will be of use.
I was referring to animals that are farmed and eaten
I admit that it's possible, but I clearly said that we dont know how much of a difference there is. Youre claiming that they are dumber than gorillas, yet they were using tools and making homes just like other humans.
They had a few plants that they domesticated but they were never good enough to start a farming society. In particular the Indians in California collected acorns which were very productive, but acorn tress growth and breeding properties werent suited to advanced agriculture
...
>Euro's didn't do much of shit, they just adopted it all from Middle Easterners.
Euros were middle easterners who moved north. So it's like no shit they took middle eastern animals, people actually use inventions society.
also
>sheep
>honey bees
>dogs
Provide an argument or at least name a book
IQ is mostly genetic
en.wikipedia.org
why would it be otherwise?
A fairy didn't come and magically gave humans larger brains, intelligence was a direct result of endless generations of natural selection, a process that didn't magically stop once man existed the tropical jungles of africa
so essentially what you're saying is blacks are stupid because of there gibsme?
>thiny veiled GGS thread
>Youre claiming that they are dumber than gorillas, yet they were using tools and making homes just like other humans.
Fuck I hate jews.
>here are solid arguments and reasoning of why you are wrong by the way you are a faggot
>well guess what don't like men so i'm not a faggot, nice try though bud.
Looks like you must read this book: en.wikipedia.org
because you and Diamond obviously believe in magic instead of evolution
You would have me believe that any animal could be as smart as the human being given enough education insofar intelligence is SOMEHOW independent of the actual structure of the brain as determined by genetics
it's incredible how many hoops these retarded leftists are willing to jump through to try and justify giving blacks equal place in our societies
...
Plenty can have a very high IQ as well even if the average is lower.
also the IQ will steadily increase.
What it comes down to is that you cannot look at a random black person on the street and assume they have a low IQ.
The same way you can't look at a white person and assume they have a high IQ.
There is way too much variance.
So in effect the lower average IQ is meaningless in every day practice.
Does it help explain some other stuff? sure.
But any black person you meet can easily be just as smart or smarter than you.
>Environment doesn't foster complicated agriculture or the necessity for complex societies
>Therefore the intelligence of the people living there was never required to be higher than that of those living in complex societies with them
You're simply implying different causes for the same effect.
>palms
>yams/potatos
>millet
>honey
>eggplant
>beans
>egusi (melon)
>fonio (cereal)
>legume
>safou
>sorghum
>various animal meats in abundance
>absolutely enormous coastlines (access to oceans)
Need more proof?
> you cannot look at a random black person on the street and assume they have a low IQ.
You can't be 100 % sure, but you can make an educated guess
> So in effect the lower average IQ is meaningless in every day practice.
To the contrary: the accumulative effect of the average makes the effects more severe
Not all women are weaker than men, but the accumulative effect would make it so a group of men can easily subdue a group of women
For some bizarre reason, you would have me to believe that, because there is a large variance in strenght within human beings, the teams of women could easily just defeat the teams of men, when that is actually a very unlikely possibility
For some bizarre reason you refuse to actually understand how accumulative effects work, just to push an absurd POV of equality
>also the IQ will steadily increase.
Why?
And your whole argument seems to be that because an individual black person can be smarter than an individual white person, this means that black people (as a group) are just as smart as white people (as a group).
That's babby's first sophistry levels of non-argument.
The Bell Curve by Murray would be a good place to start you fucking faggot.
Bullshit fearmongering. you eat it up cus you're a poolack who doesnt bother to read.
It's 50/50 according to your article.
IQ isnt the only way to pass down advances.
None of those compare to wheat, maize, or rice.
>also the IQ will steadily increase.
Why? Magic? Just because? Unless you start only breeding smart blacks with smart blacks while killing the rest in a eugenics project its not going to work.
>What it comes down to is that you cannot look at a random black person on the street and assume they have a low IQ.
Yes I can. Can you not look at the average monkey in a zoo and assume they have a low IQ?
>The same way you can't look at a white person and assume they have a high IQ.
But you can if you look at them comparatively to other races.
>There is way too much variance.
Wow you're so right. We should look at every individual Japanese and Nazi's feeling about the U.S. before shooting them.
The fact is that averages matter a lot. So do groups. You can't run a society by judging everyone as an individual. broader strokes.
>So in effect the lower average IQ is meaningless in every day practice.
So you really can't differentiate between society and individual problems? IQ matters to society. It matters to society at large a lot.
One person in society being an agressive murderer is not going to affect you on a daily basis. But have a large average of murderers is going to affect you indirectly and possible directly.
The fence gets painted faster with broader strokes. Black people need to be killed, they are and always will be on net average a huge drain on society.
So in effect the lower average IQ is meaningless in every day practice.
Does it help explain some other stuff? sure.
But any black person you meet can easily be just as smart or smarter than you.
>moving the goal posts
...
>It's 50/50 according to your article.
for children
For a fully developed human being it is 75 %:
> rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults
>The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."
What is Axum?
Lay off the social media, dimbulb.
>It's 50/50 according to your article.
Its not a 50/50 at all you dumb fucking retard. Again, do you think that humans just magically became smart one day? How is it possible to believe that intelligence isn't hereditary without disbelieving evolution. Please tell me you believe in the theory evolution.
>None of those compare to wheat, maize, or rice.
u wut
Beans are a huge source of proteins
takepart.com
it is like you are forced to embrace a position impossible to defend just so that you can claim the impossible: that a magical fairy made it so the brain is not structured by genetics
are you seriously trying to relate the IQ spread of whites and blacks to the strength spread of men and women?
Obviously the average means you can make educated guesses about GROUPS.
When dealing with a single person though, it is not an educated guess, it's an assumption.
Pick another example, because almost all men are stronger than women, there was actually a study done recently.
I never made any claims about accumulative effects.
Not pushing equality when the facts show there isnt equality...
It is pure probability. No reasonable person would ever claim that the IQ difference between blacks and white justifies someone going around and assuming every or most black people they run into are below average IQ or the inverse and assume whites are all above average.
>hurrdurr there's no food or water here
>hurrduur it's too arid to grow crops
>hurrduur let's continue to live here for centuries
>omg WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIEET NIGGA
africa is so fucking trash the only good parts are where whites took over hahaha
B..but.. w-white babby Jesus!
But Rice has been cultivated in Western Africa for many milleniums, and Africa also had the staple foods of plantain and sorghum.
>Bullshit fearmongering
Calling something fearmongering (when it clearly isn't) is not an argument.
It would not be published otherwise m8
I mean really, there is zero reason to assume no differences between intelligence among ethnic groups, and all reasons to believe there would be because of incomplete genetic flow
>its a good idea to openly proclaim you are a racist.
pic very much related
>Euro's didn't do much of shit, they just adopted it all from Middle Easterners.
Fine. Then why didn't the Africans do the same?
See, it isn't about what people did what first. It is about what people did with the advancements they came in contact with. Everyone got stuff from other people, not everyone managed to take advantage of that - or even do so today.
the reward is free time to do extra shit.
I'm not educated enough to tell myself, is this apologizing for native Americans' lack of civilization? It seems to touch on how they have farming but few domesticated animals.
>implying i'm religous
Flynn effect is why IQ's will increase.
How in teh fuck did I say black people are equivalent to whtie people when the average IQ's are different?
wtf?
All im saying is guessing a black persons IQ to be low is retarded, regardless of the IQ average simple probability paints you are a moron.
Black people are perfectly capable of having high IQ's you know this right?
again IQ increase due to flynn effect.
Again, I am solely talking about a person by person basis, as a whole you can apply meaning or whatever.
And your large average of murderers analogy is absolutely retarded because in case you didnt know whites make up 60% of US population, meaning even if they have a higher average IQ they have more stupid people populating the country than blacks do
So yea wayyyy more dumb white people in this country than dumb black people.
I already addressed why it means fucking everything.
I think you're referring to the crystallization effect of intelligence as we get older.
Dumbfuck, I answered this in like he first 10 posts of this thread.
The original African varieties were not nearly as productive. Also, fun fact:
>Around 4000 BCE the climate of the Sahara and the Sahel started to become drier at an exceedingly fast pace. This climate change caused lakes and rivers to shrink rather significantly and caused increasing desertification. This, in turn, decreased the amount of land conducive to settlements and helped to cause migrations of farming communities to the more humid climate of West Africa.
There is no reason to assume that blacks have such inferior genetics that they could never develop society if given the same environmental conditions and timeframe as the races that did invent it.
If the book proved racism then they wouldnt say that.
Mods are moving this thread to page 10 so I guess were done here. POL btfo once again