A few people have recommended me Guns, Germs, and Steel and I

I read a good lump of it and the arguments/observations were fascinating. Didn't get to anything SJW, just it took a lump out of the whole "Africans inherently inferior" bit.

people are gonna tag anything "SJW" to pejorativize it.

there is a difference between socially-minded history and political history; this work is in the former category as opposed to the latter, which we are all more accustomed to.

nevermind the autists

>>5877013

le bump. In the same boat as OP. Was real interested in reading it, but had heard it's a bunch of anti-white rhetoric

>>5877013
It's an enormous casket of shit. And not because it's "SJW". If you're actually using those terms seriously then you should probably be reading Erich von Däniken

I would generally be very wary of lending too much credence to people giving out about a thing that it 'paints white people as bad guys' - it's mostly knee-jerk autism.

File: 430146.jpg (29KB, 310x475px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 310x475px

what's the consensus on which edition is best?

also I'm in love with this version of the cover for some reason

I found it a good read for about 200 pages/half way through. Then it gets really repetitive like a university essay where he repeats everything in long concluding arguments.

I got a little bit of that feeling OP, he says societies developed differently only because of their geographical circumstances. eg Eurasia had all the best crops and animals suitable for domestication, big, accessible area to allow for transmission of ideas etc. Sometimes it seems a bit circular - Eurasia had the best crops because look at what the best crops turned out to be. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well. It takes Western dominance as the result and says it was inevitable because of factors like above. But given those factors at the time, I'm not convinced it was inevitable. People on other continents could have done something more - domesticated some kind of pulses or beans, or some other kind of animal. Sometimes it seemed like the book took away some of the genius from Eurasian dominance and said it was just natural given their circumstances.

>>5877013
it's an interesting, albeit ambitious book. The author works off the pre-supposition that differences in genetics among races have had no bearing on how world history has played out. He attempts to show that the reason the West came to dominate is purely the result of geographic and economic factors. A bit deterministic, but he does have a great deal of evidence to support his theory.

For instance, there is evidence that hunter-gatherers in the New World wiped out most of the potential domesticates not long after arriving. As a result, no Native American society had access to draft animals. Pretty much the only animals they domesticated were dogs, which they ate. This is a pretty huge disadvantage when compared to the Fertile Crescent, where people domesticated oxen and grain very, very early on compared to other regions of the world.

Give it a read, but don't expect Diamond's theory to be perfect, or the be-all end-all explanation.

And it most certainly doesn't blame Western colonialism. He merely points out the fact that Western technology, which resulted from the legacy of their superior economic/geographic resources, enabled them to dominate the world, which is merely a fact.

>>5877044
Neither edition is good because the content is bad.

>>5877013
It is a very interesting book. It is long and a lot of times repetitive, but it is one of the best books to learn the importance and effects of agriculture, domestic animals, terrain features, plagues and technology on the developmkent of civilizations. It is a geographical and biological take on this subjects, something which is very rare.

>>5877013
It's shit and pop-science made for the plebs by a geologist. Read Toynbee, Paul Kennedy or even Hobswan.

>>5877013
I found it unconvincing.

Niggers not evolving socially because they don't have the tools to do so does not preclude them being less intelligent, so it fails at its stated aim. It's one giant fallacy.

>>5877235
Don't worry, eventually you'll grow out of the edgy racist phase, and you'll be able to talk like an adult.

>>5877260
Don't worry, eventually you'll grow out of the offended-on-the-behalf-of-others phase, and you'll be able to read words like nigger without devolving into a huff.

>>5877268
I'm not offended on behalf of anyone. I'm just pointing out that this /pol/ "niggers are subhumans with small brains" belief is childish.

>>5877321
While yes, I believe that, it's not the point of my post.

Diamond sets out in his book to prove that nignogs are as smart as the rest of us by disproving the argument that they're backwards because they're dumb. He says as much in his intro.

Even if you accept that he succeeds in disproving that argument, this does not preclude them being dumb. They could be backwards because they have no good crops, sure, but that does nothing to address the alleged IQ gap or other arguments leveled at nignog intelligence.

His entire book is a fallacy and it fails to achieve its aims. It's not bad because it's anti-racist, it's bad because it's an abortion.

>>5877321

They are not sub-humans and their brains are normal. But that they are less intelligent on average (and I mean significantly less intelligent) is a fact that only political correctness wants to deny.

Not a reason to kill them or don’t offer them the same opportunities as every single human deserves, but saying they are on the same intellectual level as Anglo-Saxons and Asians is just a fairy-tale.

>>5877013
Why read Diamond when you can read Alfred Crosby's "Ecological Imperialism" which is basically the scholarly version of Guns, Germs, and Steel but proceeded it by ~30 years?

>>5877321
Not a /pol/ dude but when you look at the differences between European and African societies the facts speak for themselves. Higher propensities for violence, rape and human rights violations, inability to farm productively even on arable land, overall lower intelligence and cranium size, significantly stunted technological growth even with respect to the differences in resources available etc.

Not that they should be called 'sub-human' but there are definite objective facts which say that by any reasonable measure Europeans are a lot better off than Africans in almost every way.

>>5877345
>but saying they are on the same intellectual level as Anglo-Saxons and Asians is just a fairy-tale.

wait do people actually still believe this? lmao I thought we moved beyond social darwinism a while ago

>>5877371
>wait do people actually still believe this?
Yes, the vast majority of people who have to interact with a wide cross-section of black people do still believe this.

It's only the hipster uni students who only ever meet the cream of the black crop or the gated community whites who don't.

>>5877342
This is not a main objective of the book. You're being too narrow and concerned with your own prejudices. It is a book about development of civilization in the geographical/biological sense.

Still, the book does a good job of giving good explanation to answer some beliefs like: "If blacks were the first, why they aren't the more developed?", or "The development of the european civilization against the development of African is a evidence why europeans are superior" or "Europeans are more developed because the conditions they lived in are harsher".

File: IQ_by_Country.png (138KB, 1800x820px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1800x820px

>>5877371
except.... you know

>>5877386
>This is not a main objective of the book.
Well he sure as hell spends a lot of time talking about it. Even if you can stomach that he's only putting his book "in context" (which would be a pill the size of a submarine to swallow) it still fails to address a point he chooses to bring up.

>Still, the book does a good job of giving good explanation to answer some beliefs like: "If blacks were the first, why they aren't the more developed?", or "The development of the european civilization against the development of African is a evidence why europeans are superior" or "Europeans are more developed because the conditions they lived in are harsher".
Agreed. I'm not sure I was entirely convinced by them, but they are strong arguments.

>>5877388
>using IQ to measure intelligence
Of course white people are going to be good at a test they invented. Plus IQ has been proven to be a very poor qualifier.

>>5877371

Why is so offensive to you that human groups that evolved for several millenniums in different environments and have different genetic pools are not the same in every aspect? Nobody here is stating that genocide or even segregation is a necessity, but we already know that, if there is a God, he did not created human beings already on their final form, but slowly, from that primeval first-life-form to which we are all related etc.

Think on dogs: they are all the same species, and yet the separate breeding, in only few generations, created several different races, with different characteristics (including intelligence).

Now, why the hell would this occur with dogs but not if humans if we are all subjected to the same biological rules? And there is prove of the differences between different human groups when it comes to average intelligence.

Why people get so mad about this?

>>5877416
>Of course white people are going to be good at a test they invented.

HAHAHAHAHA oh my fucking god please PLEASE be bait

>>5877013
>Europeans are responsible for other countries being third-world hellholes

are you implying that they aren't? "modernity" is imperialism. "Civilization" is synonymous in the eurocentric worldview with the "white man's burden." europeans are responsible for imposing their cultures and themselves upon traditional cultures.

>>5877386
the chinese had "guns, germs, and steel," but didn't go around enslaving and genociding groups of people.

>>5877381
>Yes, the vast majority of people who have to interact with a wide cross-section of black people do still believe this.
Damn that is one hell of a generalization. Citation?

>hipster uni students
Nice ad hominem

>uni students who only ever meet the cream of the black crop
So blacks that have access to higher (university) education tend to be more intelligent? Couldn't you say the same about white people? That doesn't make any sense.

>>5877381
>Yes, the vast majority of people who have to interact with a wide cross-section of black people do still believe this.
>It's only the hipster uni students who only ever meet the cream of the black crop or the gated community whites who don't.

This, this, this, fucking this.

Generally people who get angry or offended are either black or mulato people themselves or white people who didn’t even seen black groups in all their lives.

But for people who live next to a lot of black people and went to school with them (like I did) the differences in intelligence are obvious: the evidences just slap you in the face almost daily.

>>5877013
Not any of these guys but read Arthur Gobineau's book instead, he pretty much told it like it is.

>>5877416
>Of course white people are going to be good at a test they invented.
B8

>Plus IQ has been proven to be a very poor qualifier.
In fact, the opposite is true. High IQ correlates with success. That doesn't prove a causal relationship, but are you really going to try and deny one?

>>5877446
>Citation?
My ass.

>Nice ad hominem
Can't handle the banter?
It's only an ad hom if there is no argument at all, just insults. Insults AND argument = no ad hom.

For example:
>your wrong because your a faget
ad hom
>your wrong because the sky is actually blue, not red, as shown by this compelling evidence. also your a faget
not ad hom

>That doesn't make any sense.
Because you misunderstand. I'm saying that the uni students don't realise blacks are dumb because they only interact with the smart ones, because only the smarties get into uni.

Anyone who has to interact with a broad range of people realises quickly that nignogs = stupid.

>>5877467
>your wrong because the sky is actually blue, not red, as shown by this compelling evidence. also your a faget
>Citation?
My ass.

compelling evidence? hahahahahaha

Also what is "success"? Vague as fuck.

>>5877488
>being deliberately obtuse
If you're not going to make a good faith attempt at understanding then I'm not going to entertain you.

>>5877444
Somebody needs to read up on the history of China....

As someone who's white and actually works in an impoverished area with a minority population equal to that if whites and ISN'T citing "my ass" as a source:

There are a shitload of stupid black people. There are also a shitload of stupid white people. There's just a fucking massive conglomerate of idiots, period. In my experience, the ratios of intelligence levels are pretty much equal across the board.

>>5877660
cool opinions, we'll just go back to using cited, objective information

>>5877598
Then get to it. I don't see any Chinese colonies anywhere.

>>5877028
>>5877139
can you explain?

>>5877685
>Then get to it. I don't see any Chinese colonies anywhere.

The whole geographical region that is called "China" today was conquered by a Han Chinese imperial army, you illiterate imbecile.

The giant mass of land that we call China were "colonies" for a long time, before they were called China, and the Han Chinese won the wars they initiated.

You should learn to read before making statements about shit you have no interest/knowledge about.

>>5877345
>But that they are less intelligent on average (and I mean significantly less intelligent) is a fact that only political correctness wants to deny.

Although this may be completely true, what /pol/ argues is that Africans are inherently so much less intelligent, when it's far more likely that living conditions and cultural priorities are the cause.

>>5877697
lol. those "colonies" have cultural continuity with the whole of the chinese people. they were independent principalities, not colonies. warring states, lesser kingdoms, etc.

so you point to the "colonies" within the land of china. ok. are there any others that are OUTSIDE of the geographical region? any ACTUAL former colonies turned 3rd world countries? No, obviously not.

>>5877707
>when it's far more likely that living conditions and cultural priorities are the cause.
Why?

Intelligence is a physical characteristic. You can have less knowledge due to poor education, but not less intelligence.

>>5877381
>>5877450

>they're anecdotal evidence is wrong, but mine is great because it proves how obvious it is!

I don't really give a fuck about racism, I just think it's a bit silly, but what you've said here isn't true at all. I grew up and currently live in Philadelphia, a predominantly black city with a long history of racial tension. My white family interacted fine with all of our black neighbors, and though race relations were far from a multicultural paradise, the differences were very obviously cultural. There was and is a much bigger divide between the poor neighborhoods and the rich neighborhoods.

>>5877747
>I have always lived in a place that's always been infested with non-homogenous ethnic groups
>I don't see anything wrong with it

Well no shit, dumbass. Why don't you try living in somewhere that's 100% white for a while and then move back. You'll see exactly how shit your "normal" life really is.

"Redpilling" (I hate that term) doesn't just require you interact with homogenous black people, it requires you also interact with homogenous white people. You need to see the differences.

It's why lawyers are always racist. They're white people who have to deal with nig-nogs.

>>5877735
>any ACTUAL former colonies turned 3rd world countries?

Well, one could argue that the whole of China with the exception of Hong Kong and Macao is a 3rd World Country.

>>5877742
Because the tests administered to measure intelligence are based on knowledge.

And yeah, you can have less intelligence due to poor education. Children go through very specific stages of mental development, and if certain processes of thought and reasoning are neglected during those stages, the individual will be notably less adept at those processes than someone who received appropriate stimulation.

So a subsaharan African is taking a test that partially assesses their knowledge of topics they've never been exposed to, and assesses reasoning skills they were never encouraged to develop. Of course they're going to score poorly. And yes, it probably means they are significantly stupider than a first world white person who takes the same test. But that does not prove, or even give good support, to the assertion that all subsaharan africans are inferior humans with inherently limited mental abilities.

>>5877783
made that way by the West. thank you for further proving my point.

"HURR IQ IS A GOOD INDICATOR" "DURR BLACK PEOPLE ARE LESS EVOLVED" "MMMPFF RACE IS A REAL BIOLOGICAL REALITY"

this board is fucking shit. most of you guys are borderline retarded on the same scale you choose to measure whole peoples by

File: westvirginiatrailerpark.jpg (52KB, 494x329px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 494x329px

>>5877766
>implying I've never been out of city limits

West Virginian trailer parks are very, very similar to north Philly neighborhoods. The former is homogeneous white people and the latter homogeneous blacks.

>>5877808
>made that way by the West.

If a German-Jewish philosopher named Karl Marx is representative of "the West", I sincerely think you need to read more books.

In fact, you seem have some kind of ideological witch-hunt going on, in which you are trying to blame every wrong thing that's happening in the world on white people.

File: 1390578876124.jpg (9KB, 313x235px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 313x235px

>>5877215
I'm tempted to pick up Touynbee from my uni library but I'm a bit apprehensive that it might be quite outdated

>>5877817
I hear ya dude.

>>5877013
Read Victor Davis Hanson's book instead.

>>5877086
>he says societies developed differently only because of their geographical circumstances.

This is entirely true.
Like every other species and subspecies of living beings on Earth, humans have evolved according to their geographical location.

Some climates forced humans to restrict themselves and make provisions to survive during periods of low-availability of food.
For example the Inuits had the tradition of killing off the children and the elderly when food started becoming too dire, especially the women which were unable to go hunt and thus provide most of the food.

Some others didn't, but they had to fight off parasites, thus had to invest in a strong immune system instead of their brain.

Obviously over dozens of thousands of years of separate evolution you get divergent traits.

>>5877783
I'm pretty sure most sane people would say that it's less an actual third world country like subsaharan africa and india than it is an ex-communist country like russia and the rest of east europe. Wealth and human development indicators seem to point that way.

>>5877844
Actually OP should read:
1. Gobineau
2. Victor Davis Hanson
3. Jared Diamond
then figure out for himself who is right.

>>5877826
is that your rebuttal? calling me a jew and a marxist?

>If a German-Jewish philosopher named Karl Marx is representative of "the West", I sincerely think you need to read more books.

i'm not. i already have plans to read more thank you.

white people as a whole by virtue of their whiteness are not to blame, but the western european concept of "modernity," their reductionist, materialism that caused them to look upon the world and dominate it and exploit it, that moved them to look for the infinite in the finite (which propelled their technological advancement) and the arrogance that resulted from these things. in a way, white people are the cause of the oppressive economic hegemony that we all live under today, but not because they're white.

>>5877766
>Well no shit, dumbass. Why don't you try living in somewhere that's 100% white for a while and then move back. You'll see exactly how shit your "normal" life really is.

I've lived in a working class black part of urban South Carolina and a working class white part of rural Virginia. Wanna guess how different the people in each place were?

>>5877874
Why are you still submitting yourself to white oppression and arrogance?
You could be free.

>>5877817
>Muh white guilt
You're anonymous, you can say what you really think ;)

>>5877892
Why are you making insubstantial posts that avoid the crux of the issue? Are you that insecure? I replied to your inane rebuttal with a thought-out response and you throw me this shit?

>>5877921
What's the crux of the issue?
I see someone complaining about reductionist materialism and technological advancement using technology developed thanks to reductionist materialism.

So I'm asking, why are you submitting?
What's preventing you from running in the forest with your hunter-gatherers brethens?

>>5877357
One could argue that is so because systematic oppression stunted their growth for centuries.

>>5877927
>why are you submitting?
How and why am I submitting, and how and why have you gleaned this from my post? The entire world is western. Even if your post made sense, it be impossible to not "submit" to the monster modernity has created.

>I see someone complaining about reductionist materialism and technological advancement using technology developed thanks to reductionist materialism.

Again with the assumptions. Who is complaining? Nobody is refuting the importance or significance of the works of science. "Science" or empiricism is a tool, primarily. A TOOL. Not a world-view. It is the application of science and it's fruits that determine how it is abused or misused. Would you agree that science has been grossly misused, in spite of it's conveniences?

>What's preventing you from running in the forest with your hunter-gatherers brethens?

Here's where the subtle racism kicks in, right? Science isn't unique to the European. Neither is civilization. And again, even if I wanted to live as a hunter-gatherer, the current world hegemony wouldn't allow it. As an american, I can't go out and live in the forest and build my own house because I'd be violating some law that is ultimately and essentially economic in nature.

>>5877013
OP, i'll sum it up for you.

>book gives normal explanation for something
>white supremacists think they are inherently better
>idiots think Europe is some sort of house of geniusses which is because of the race inhabiting it
>prejudiced bigots and general /pol/tards can't handle a non autistic worldview
>label it SJW bullshit to scare people like you off of it.

If you turn the arguments mentioned in this thread around they are basically saying that if Western European whites lived in Africa, Africa would be the richest place on earth right now, whereas Diamond says that people are people, and the reason Europe is rich is because it's Europe, and not because it's inhabited by whites.

>>5878004
>The entire world is western.
Bullshit.
And I'm the racist lel.
> Who is complaining?
You, in this post: >>5877874
>in a way, white people are the cause of the oppressive economic hegemony that we all live under today

>wah wah fucking white people oppressing me with their internet and electricity

>Would you agree that science has been grossly misused, in spite of it's conveniences?
No.

>Science isn't unique to the European.
>The entire world is western.
Which is it now?

>As an american, I can't go out and live in the forest and build my own house because I'd be violating some law that is ultimately and essentially economic in nature.
How do you think the hunter-gatherers tribes which still exist in Brazil, the Philippines, the Andaman Islands, Australia do it?

File: tumblr.png (55KB, 528x606px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 528x606px

The book tries to dispel Asian (read as: the Chinese) and European superiority

Basically, it states that the reason Asians and Europeans have been kicking ass and taking names for the past thousand years is because they were blessed to have settled in areas that were rich enough to make an advanced civilization in and hard enough that innovation was required.

The reason there are were amazing sub-saharan empires (Ghana and Mali were not great) is because sub-saharan Africa is a hunter-gatherer civilization's wet dream. Because of this, they had no need to innovate despite the vasts amount of mineral wealth.

>>5878843
were no*
oops

>>5877874
White people had more power than everyone else, that is literally the only difference. Every country ever is full of people murdering and oppressing. Also if you want to attribute bad things to white people you'll have to admit the enormous positive contributions as well

File: oswald.jpg (115KB, 397x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 397x600px

Every GG&S thread makes Spengler frown a little bit more.

File: 4990124+_9a12b1b684934d1617a800d30b60f6f9.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>5877467

>>5878959
what percent of people on 4chan are actually racist?

>>5878961
I don't think that many. I browse /pol/ frequently(well did), found most people there similar to me in some ways, and I'm not remotely racist. I don't see how racism is even anything other than a scientific question, why do people who aren't geneticists even open their mouths? Point being most of even the people who are not Leftists are not really racist, racism just stands out a lot because its so taboo that those who are stick in your head. There are two types of racists on here from what I can tell- poor people who have deal with gangster types, and extremely reactionary people who want to go back to when Europe was stronk.

>>5878046
>Diamond says that people are people, and the reason Europe is rich is because it's Europe, and not because it's inhabited by whites.

But that's wrong.

>>5877013
The people who would call it "SJW bullshit" are more than likely white supremacists with a vested interest in denying atrocities committed by whites. Protip: anyone on 4chan wailing about SJW this or SJW that is usually an idiot.

>>5878843
Jesus Christ that's retarded as fuck.

So can someone explain then why the Arabs, living in shitty North Africa, were the height of civilization during the Islamic Golden Age while the Europeans were still dumping their shit into streets, bleeding people to death to "get the disease out", witchcraft, barbaric surgeries with 0 medical knowledge, etc? Why where the Arabs, Persians, Chinese, Indians, so advanced while Europe was worse than modern Africa?

This book is dumb. White people are smart because they're that way, not because an overabundance of resources which Africa certainly possessed over Europe.

>>5879005
>Pleb minority detected

>>5878843
>white people are savage terrorists
ftw

>>5877013
It's not bad but it's very self-serving. That Europeans had the environment to allow them to dominate doesn't mean they also didn't have superior genetic intelligence which they would still possess today. It's a theory, and intelligence testing does a lot to poke holes in it. Have some gumption, don't take everything he says as fact, and you should be fine reading...strange how you can say this for practically every book.

>>5877321
You'll eventually realize that no belief is inherently "childish"-- a buzzword to discredit your opponent without any effort. Rascists have been around for centuries and still are the majority of the human populace. They have undoubtedly had some geniuses in their circle. If a single word or idea brings you so far out of an inquistive state of mind, you need to read more.

>>5877830

History PhD here,

It is, but you should read it while keeping that in mind. I'd also really recommend Hobsbawm.

>>5879053
Can you cite enough studies plz?

>>5877438
but European culture is superior????

>>5879109
>citation: europeans

>>5877817
Have you taken an IQ test? Come back and tell us you're not clinically retarded if you can't score decently.

>>5877467
if anyone is convinced by this guy's argumentation you should probably kill yourself

>>5878976
I don't think it's necessarily racism, but I would say that the vast majority of /pol/ wants to live in a world of nation-states instead of the weird multicultural blend that we're getting now.

It's not that people think Arabs or Turks are subhuman, it's just that they think Arabs and Turks have no place in France or wherever. It's not born out of racism.

>>5879130
Exactly what aspects of a "weird multicultural blend" are bad?

>>5879015
lol how did breeding select for intelligence? primitive iq tests?

>>5879130
>It's not born out of racism.
No but to be fair, it often does cause racism. That's why Leftists are always screaming about how disliking cultures is racist, it isn't technically but humans just associate patterns naturally, so when all these people look the same way and they have distinct behavorial traits due to culture...

As for multiculturalism I really don't know. That is a complicated topic. There is surely a lot that sucks about it and that should be discussed instead of being taboo but I don't know if it's necessarily all bad. There are also ethical concerns and well it might just be inevitable.

>>5877357
confirmed for not reading the book. almost every single detail of your argument is analyzed.

>>5879142
>lol how did breeding select for intelligence?
So you're saying human intelligence happened by accident?

>>5879156
it certainly didn't happen on purpose lmao what does that even mean? try answering my question with a statement rather than with a question so you don't get lost

>>5877388
omfg africa a fucking shit hole continent that has its schools built in huts has horrible iq levels??? fucking idiot you know there are black people outside of africa as well do you not?

>>5879139
The part where my native culture is being displaced by an immigrant culture that we have literally no way out out competing. Australia has 20 million people. China has 1 billion. So long as we allow them to immigrate unchecked, we're going to be under pressure.

That's not necessarily a problem with multiculturalism as much as it is unchecked immigration, but the two often go hand in hand.

>>5879152
Yes, it does often cause racism, and that's regrettable. Even if certain races are biologically better or worse than others it's pretty clear that all humans deserve human dignity no matter how intelligent they are or aren't or whatever strange criteria we're using to judge human worth this decade.

I don't think multiculturalism is inherently bad, I just think it's been poorly implemented because we are ignoring the real problems it brings.

>>5879170
>you know there are black people outside of africa as well do you not?
They also score far lower on IQ tests.

>>5877388
how the hell do people get more intelligent the more eastward they go? doesn't make any sense regarding out of africa theory

>>5879175
>it's possible to preserve culture

wow australians are fucking dumb

>>5879187
But I don't want to preserve my culture, I just want to give it a chance to exist at all. There can never be Australian culture if there is no Australian people.

>>5879191
At what point would you decrease or stop immigration?

>>5879169
There were evolutionary pressures for intelligence or else humans would not have developed it. That blatantly contradicts your implication that we were not 'bred' for intelligence, we were, by natural pressures.

>>5879191
that would be preserving it. it wouldn't disappear forever even if australia became more china because it's not like chinese culture is homogeneous and unchanging

>>5879180
Can you cite the studies

>>5879198
That's an operational matter that should be determined by the relevant government bodies. I don't have the time to do a real, calculated analysis on what is the optimum level of immigrants and even if I did I don't have access to the information I would need.

That said, the guiding principle would be stopping immigration when it reaches such a level when distinct and significant immigrant subcultures start forming.

If we start getting a large group of people who identify as a Japanese-Australian then bam, no more Japanese allowed until it goes away.

>>5879206
>There were evolutionary pressures for intelligence or else humans would not have developed it

oh you mean like population density and subsequent complex societies?

>by natural pressures.

obviously only the stupid survive when you live off the land

dec 12 2014, the day /pol/ finally came to /lit/. stay strong /lit/izens. logic will prevail.

>>5879139
Multiculturalism is a negative consequence of immigration even if you support such a thing. It's failed assimilation and the antithesis of homogeneity which is key to social stability. Assimilation becomes exponentially harder the larger a group is as they're able to reinforce their culture. States/communities WILL go out of their way to correct these anomalies in non-assimilated groups whether it's through affirmative action, welfare or lynching. These imported problems (whether they're socioeconomic or "racial" doesn't matter, they're still problems with no easy solution) makes the Immigrant inferior to the Native, especially in large numbers from one specific group. On the other hand they are necessary if a population can't sustain itself or if there are holes in the economy.

>>5879215
>If we start getting a large group of people who identify as a Japanese-Australian then bam, no more Japanese allowed until it goes away.

but this doesn't apply to australians? i.e. there is a large number of european australians so shouldn't there be more immigration to offset that majority?

>>5879219
18 bro. 18

>>5879215
Can you give an example of a country that is overimmmagrantized, if one exists?

>>5877345
so is saying whitey's are on the same level as the East/South Asian masterrace.

oh wait using IQ as an actual measure of intelligence is fucking retarded.

>>5879217
The point is that environment can select for intelligence, different populations of humans had different environments for enough time to be evolutionarily relevant, so they could have different levels of average or overall intelligence. It's not necessarily true and would have to be proven but I don't understand your dislike for the idea, to the point of making crude strawmen like 'primitive iq tests'.

>>5879223
this

>>5879223
Can you give examples of what problems it creates?

>>5879236
This discussion

>>5879206
>>5879217
Intelligence is counter-productive to survival (intelligence of a sufficient level allows the animal to override its instincts, putting it in dangerous situations for no good reason) and as such is not a product of natural selection.

Intelligence, rather, is a product of sexual selection.

>>5877985
One could argue that God created the world in 7 days and that no one has ever found a true transitional fossil.

>>5879245
>Intelligence is counter-productive to survival (intelligence of a sufficient level allows the animal to override its instincts, putting it in dangerous situations for no good reason) and as such is not a product of natural selection.
>Intelligence, rather, is a product of sexual selection
Do you have research to back up this claim? I can imagine many ways in which it would be false- for example the ability to communicate abstract notions to each other is highly beneficial to coordinating hunts or division of labor which creates greater efficiency and resources and higher chance of reproduction.

>>5879233
>The point is that environment can select for intelligence

then you agree with the book

>>5877673
>Objective
>IQ tests that say fucking Koreans are the master race

pick one

>>5879210
>it wouldn't disappear forever even if australia became more china because it's not like chinese culture is homogeneous and unchanging
It would exist as a blend of Australian and Chinese culture, not stand alone.

Put simply, I want somewhere that I can live in my own culture. Multiculturalism doesn't undermine this so long as it's not a threat to the primacy of the native culture, which requires there to be a check on immigration.

>>5879227
Tibet.

>>5879225
>but this doesn't apply to australians?
Not in our own country, no.

Outside of our country it's up to the individual governments to decide how they want to handle their own cultural landscape. I wouldn't object to other countries placing caps on Australian immigration if they had a good reason to do so, because I understand completely why they would do that.

Any objective identifier of IQ is backwards ass retarded.

>>5879254
Well he brings that up when talking about the New guineans if I'm not mistaken, but he doesn't apply it to any other population comparisons.

>>5879260
>IQ
Intelligence, rather. I like to think the concept of intelligence should be as undefined as possible. Or undefined within reasonable constraints anyway.

>>5879265
Would you mind giving your reasons for wanting to think that?

>>5879258
>Put simply, I want somewhere that I can live in my own culture

australian culture wouldn't be eroded within your lifetime. and you're still talking about preserving culture. culture isn't a distinct entity.

and why does it matter if you live in your own culture or not?

>Not in our own country, no.

you are aware that it's not really "your own country", right? in fact chinese immigration is probably more legitimate than how australians even made it "their own country"

>>5879272
>and why does it matter if you live in your own culture or not?
Not him but are you serious here? Of course people want to live in their own cultures, it makes them feel safe and like they belong, instills a feeling of community, etc. Do you think the entire world is just randomly xenophobic? No it's because they treasure their culture and don't deal well with different ones

>>5879282
in his case, an australian-chinese blend would still be quite australian

>>5879267
Because that is the thought wave through my brain. That is how I think. I love creativity, and link it tremendously with intelligence. I guess that might be part of why.

>>5877783
>one could argue... 3rd world country
Yeah, but one would be firstly wrong, and also a fucking idiot.

>>5879272
>australian culture wouldn't be eroded within your lifetime.
Wanna bet?

>and you're still talking about preserving culture. culture isn't a distinct entity
True. Culture isn't made or destroyed, it describes the way you behave and the way others behave. Culture is a description of the way a people behave, so it should be easy for you to see how changing the people changes the culture.

>and why does it matter if you live in your own culture or not?
The same reason I want a big TV and a nice car. I might not need those things but they're damn comfortable. I'd simply prefer to live in Australian culture than a weird Australian-Chinese mix.

>you are aware that it's not really "your own country", right?
I consider it our country. The country of Australia is "owned" by the Australian nation and the state of Australia is the nation's representative and steward.

This is not a minority viewpoint. In fact, it's the basis of the international system.

>>5879301
Not Australian enough for comfort.

>>5879311
I don't really understand, do you think there are many types of intelligence and that it is impossible to have a general measure, or are you saying it is actually indefinable on some fundamental level?

>>5879320
change doesn't necessarily bring discomfort

besides, culture stays pretty consistent anyway if you're just hanging out with people who share your culture. it's not really a good reason to slow immigration

>>5879227
Sweden!

>>5879338
>change doesn't necessarily bring discomfort
True, but the changes that have already happened are causing me discomfort and I've no reason to believe that further change will buck this trend.

>culture stays pretty consistent anyway if you're just hanging out with people who share your culture
Yes, but the problem is the people who I *can't* choose to interact with. For example, Chinese businesses operating in Australia are allowed to make speaking Mandarin a condition of employment. It's just one example of how changing demographics is erasing the indigenous culture of my country. It means that Australians are excluded from jobs in their own country and it encourages subgroups of Chinese-Australians who live together and work for Chinese companies and continue to grow.

We can't out-compete them in this demographic battle. We're simply too few to out-produce our culture and we're too multicultural to force them to assimilate (leaving aside the ethical issues of this). We need to cut therm off at the source if we are to survive as a distinct people. Else, we will go the way of Tibet.

>>5879362
>Chinese businesses operating in Australia are allowed to make speaking Mandarin a condition of employment.
top kek Australia btfo

>>5879326
I'm saying that I equate intelligence as desirable something limited in definition. Understand? Like that is a core, very large concept in my personal philosophy. You have no idea how much better you think about reality if your brain has this as its foundation.

That, as a concept, is very Nietzschean by the way. I can guarantee you that Nietzsche would not have enjoyed objective ways of defining worth to society. It makes life deterministic the more graphs you make defining human behavior. It's self-fulfilling: you posit essential behavior you suppose people have, and they inevitably mirror it. Humans are mirrors in endless recursion. Throw a wrench in the system.

>>5879378
Indeed.

My fellow citizens seem bent on collective suicide.

>>5879253
>I can imagine many ways in which it would be false- for example the ability to communicate abstract notions to each other is highly beneficial to coordinating hunts
Plenty of animals do that already, yet they haven't attained the level of intelligence (or, more importantly, self-awareness) that we have.
>division of labor which creates greater efficiency and resources and higher chance of reproduction.
The species breeds just fine without infrastructure. That infrastructure is a side effect of intelligence, not a root cause for it.

You have to remember that the key difference between natural selection and sexual selection is the will to survive. Natural selection concerns itself only with surviving the environment long enough to produce a new generation, and to that end it will only select traits which enhance the survivability of the individual, even if it's to the individuals detriment. Sexual selection enhances pre-existing advantageous traits, or makes disadvantageous traits desirable by increasing the individuals chance of procreating earlier and more frequently, even if it's to the detriment of the survival of the species.

If intelligence were necessary, or even advantageous, for survival (and in this case we're discussing human-level intelligence) then everything would be intelligent. This is not the case, et all intelligence is a trait selected for by the species as desirable. At some point proto-human women looked at men and thought: "I kind of want to fuck the one who's building a shelter and not playing with his own shit." and now we have atomic weapons. Thanks, women.

>>5879362
>not wanting to be embraced by the glorious pan-pacific Chinese Imperium as a vassal state
bai tou scum.

>>5879362
if you're comfortable with your own culture then i don't know why you would want to work in a chinese company anyway. besides, learning mandarin is a good idea regardless

>Australians are excluded from jobs in their own country

i don't think being excluded from chinese companies is that much of a problem, esp if its just immigrants going into immigrant companies. australians can still get jobs

> it encourages subgroups of Chinese-Australians

that's fine

>We can't out-compete them in this demographic battle.

is it a demographic battle? not all chinese are leaving china and not all chinese who leave china are going to australia

this is just yellow peril nonsense

>>5879410
>At some point proto-human women looked at men and thought:

i don't think women had that much autonomy

>>5879421
I'm a massive Sinophile and in my heart of hearts that is actually my fetish. Glorious Communist Celestial Empire partnership with a resurgent Australia.

>>5879428
>i don't think being excluded from chinese companies is that much of a problem, esp if its just immigrants going into immigrant companies.
The problem is that it creates immigrant communities. It's not a real problem as far as jobs go because Australian can get other jobs. The problem is that people can live in Australia and yet not speak a word of English. How can they be a part of our culture if they don't even speak our language? They can't. That's not a problem though, *so long as they remain a minority*.

But with unchecked immigration, they won't.

>that's fine
Only so long as they remain small sub-groups.

>not all chinese are leaving china and not all chinese who leave china are going to australia
True, but this doesn't change the fact that the demographic of immigrants is growing.

China is just an example. It applies to any immigrant group.

>>5879461
>The problem is that people can live in Australia and yet not speak a word of English. How can they be a part of our culture if they don't even speak our language?

australia has no official language and obviously they're not trying to be a part of the culture. not that it matters if chinese speak amongst chinese.

i don't know what your problem is with people staying in their own groups even if they aren't a minority. if all groups were exactly the same size would you see that as a problem?

>True, but this doesn't change the fact that the demographic of immigrants is growing.

that abo feel

>It applies to any immigrant group.

with less population than china. and they're all trying to compete against each other anyway

anyway the real problem here is white diaspora. i can't imagine this would have been a problem if they just stayed in europe lol

>>5879488
>i don't know what your problem is with people staying in their own groups even if they aren't a minority.
Because power is a zero-sum game that you can't opt out of.

We are in competition with other cultures in our own country for the position of dominant culture and all the advantages that conveys. I want us to "win". That requires a cap on immigration.

>that abo feel
Exactly how well did unchecked immigration work out for the Aboriginals, by the way? Did the Europeans enrich the Native American culture, or did they replace it?

The example of indigenous people being wiped out by unchecked migration is not an argument for multiculturalism without limits, it is a warning *against* it. It will happen again. It will be more subtle, and it will be more polite, but it will happen. It's happening in Tibet *right now*.

I kek at the fact that nobody is yet to address that fact, by the way. Tibet is the subject of a concerted effort by the Chinese government to destroy the indigenous culture through sheer force of numbers. So is Palestine. So is Kurdistan. So are many, many places throughout the world right now today.

This isn't some distant possibility. The political effects of culture are real and nations play the game to win.

>i can't imagine this would have been a problem if they just stayed in europe lol
The Chinese chose to stay in China. It didn't work out too well for them, did it?

I'm not advocating a global brotherhood where all cultures get on. That's impossible. I'm advocating a global system where we are undeniably on top. I'm sure you'll agree that it's preferable to the alternative - being somewhere on the bottom.

>>5879524
>Exactly how well did unchecked immigration work out for the Aboriginals, by the way?

something tells me the chinese aren't going to start a massacre and hunt white people down like all cases of white immigration

>It's happening in Tibet *right now*.

tibet-china relations are completely different than australia-china. there is historical precedent for how they act towards those cultures

>It didn't work out too well for them, did it?

?

europe isn't an equivalent to china

>I'm advocating a global system where we are undeniably on top.

oh dear

>>5879539
>something tells me the chinese aren't going to start a massacre and hunt white people down like all cases of white immigration
Interestingly enough, more abuses than just massacres were perpetrated on the Aboriginals. Things like not being recognised at citizens in their own country. Things like not being allowed to move from town to town or apply for a job without permission.

There doesn't need to be a massacre for indigenous populations to lose all semblance of independence and control over their own destiny in the face of massive immigration from foreign nations.

>there is historical precedent for how they act towards those cultures
Yes, like the historical precedent of China demanding the entire outside world submit and literally kowtow to it for as long as it could get away with it. If you want to talk about historical precedents, talk about the Chinese perspective of 'barbarians'.

>but that perspective doesn't exist anymore
Then we admit that cultural relations can change over time, which means that Australia-China relations based on each being its own nation-state might also change when Australia's demographics change.

>oh dear
What's your alternative? We all hold hands and close our eyes?

Someone needs to be in power. That is a structural reality of the international system. Do you deny this?

If someone needs to be in power, I'd rather it be us.

What nationality are you, by the way?

Daily reminder the Persians won at Pelusium despite their thin skulls.

File: 10700522_10205509459956308_6903140245823819976_o.jpg (224KB, 1250x863px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1250x863px

>>5877013
>implying European influence wasn't socio-economic interference for their colonies...

>>5879441
>i don't think women had that much autonomy
Oh ho. Ho ho ho.

Women have definitely controlled the mating at some point, or more likely multiple points, during our shared history. The evidence of this is right there on your body. Your penis is huge (from a simian perspective) and it got that way because women chose something that gave them pleasure during intercourse.

Before anyone hits me with a kneejerk response, go and look up gorilla's. Males 100% control their mating, and they have tiny penises.

>>5879139
the part where they cut your head off

>>5881240
You are right to some extent. It was probably not women selecting based on pleasure. Larger penises have other advantages such as displacing rival sperm and so on.

>>5879015
Because the early caliphates took a lot of dhimmis when they conquered egypt and the levant from the Eastern Roman Empire

>>5879255
>>5879255
>North Korean master race uses elite hacking skills to force Japanese company to not release film
>with a single reminder of American history they stop an outlandish propaganda film from being released in American theatres
>Koreans
>not the master race

>>5881240
Lel m8 if you're going to bring up some just-so stories you should cite some studies or something.
Obviously intelligence evolved in humans, and in different human subgroups, for a reason, but you can't just say "sexual selection".
Sexual selection is a good explanation for different hair and eye colours, pale skin in Europeans, so you could think up some sexual selection explanation for the higher intelligence in the northern hemisphere but intelligence was selected all the way back then in Africa among our primate ancestors.
What were the pressures millions of years ago is a good question.

There literally hasn't been enough time between now and the birth of anatomically modern Homo sapiens for speciation or even subspeciation to even fucking occur. There's been around 200,000 years ago. That's simply not long enough for different populations to be genetically dispersed enough to be considered a new species/subspecies, even with the level of spreading in our distribution and the amount of ecological shifts that have occurred. Skull shape and skin tone and even height don't mean anything, the same way that a population of deer living on higher ground would, over a few thousand years, adapt to have properties better for higher ground, such as hematological adaptations like greater hematocrit,
oxygen capacity and oxygen affinity. However, they would still be the same species as the lowland deer, because not enough time or ecological change had passed/occurred for them to be considered differently.

Intelligence is similarly a trivial claim, because intelligence and intuition are both incredibly diverse and adaptable and innate to biologically modern humans. IQ tests are questionable, because the debate as to whether IQ is even heritable is still a big one in the scientific community. Research on heritability of IQ infers from the similarity of IQ in closely related persons the proportion of variance of IQ among individuals in a study population that is associated with genetic variation within that population. This provides a maximum estimate of genetic versus environmental influence for phenotypic variation in IQ in that population. . Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait. That means it is highly complicated genetically and not simply 'parents were stupid, child will be stupid too'.

The adaptability of human intelligence allows for a multitude of different responses to the environment in which we live - and we refer to these as 'cultures'.

>>5879620
That pic reminded me of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo

>>5882476

also

Cognition is something that develops throughout childhood and adolescence, it is not genetically innate, and it is subject to the environment in which we develop. (Please don't cite adoption tests at me because many of those are the most laughably imprecise sociological studies I've ever read about.)

>>5882476
>>5882485

if cognitive inferiority of certain genetic clusters and certain populations of humans doesn't make sense, then why did eurasia overtake sub saharan african civilisation at the end of the medieval period?

>>5882476
Yet there are a number of features that evolved recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance#Alcohol_tolerance_in_different_ethnic_groups

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_5.htm

Also the concept of species is poorly-defined.

>>5882497

Mixture of geographical and cultural elements.

Like I said, a culture is a reaction to the environment around it, and so will be only as complicated as the region it occupies, and that means the other cultures that might come in and influence it. The birth of European civilisation during the Greek Bronze Age came about because of all the cultural influences Greece was experiencing. The Neolithic Revolution reached Europe by way of Greece and the Balkans, beginning in the 7th millennium BC, and various cultures influenced the region because it was at the crossroads of Europe and Western Asia - people from the Balkans, Pelasgians, Myceneans, Ionians, Dorians, Armenians, Levantines, and especially Phoenicians. This tinderbox of cultural influences allowed the spark of European civilisation to begin, and it carried on for the rest of history. However, European civilisation has existed for only 1.38% of human history.

Sometimes, enough cultural and environmental 'clashing' will occur that 'supercultures' are produced, and European culture is one of these. With it, the European 'race' is constructed and defined, and thus all the others, non-European 'races', who are assumed to not have this level of cultural integration, and advancement because of that integration, and thus are deemed as 'inferior', when in actual fact they are just different.

>>5882485
>Cognition is something that develops throughout childhood and adolescence, it is not genetically innate, and it is subject to the environment in which we develop.
There isn't a single phenotype that isn't subjected to the environment.
Of course a phenotype is a phenotype, what's the point of making a tautology?

What's interesting is the probability of a given genotype to give a phenotype or a distribution of phenotypes in a given environment or a distribution of environments, and to compare that genotype to other genotypes, to a distribution of genotypes.

>>5882520

>are deemed as 'inferior', when in actual fact they are just different.
Much like the rich isn't richer than the poor, he just has a different level of wealth.

>>5882476
>Intelligence is similarly a trivial claim, because intelligence and intuition are both incredibly diverse and adaptable and innate to biologically modern humans. IQ tests are questionable, because the debate as to whether IQ is even heritable is still a big one in the scientific community. Research on heritability of IQ infers from the similarity of IQ in closely related persons the proportion of variance of IQ among individuals in a study population that is associated with genetic variation within that population. This provides a maximum estimate of genetic versus environmental influence for phenotypic variation in IQ in that population. . Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait. That means it is highly complicated genetically and not simply 'parents were stupid, child will be stupid too'.
This is great. You just managed to type all that unintelligible rubbish without ever defining "intelligence" and "IQ".

Why do you evolutionary windbags rarely pay attention to much logic and the concepts involved?

>>5882517

But these are all basic biological adaptations that don't come close to the complexities of human intelligence. These are comparable to the altitudinal adaptations of hypothetical deer I was talking about. These I accept.

The human brain is so complicated, took so long to reach the level it is at, and has, without fail, had to contend with such a complex and dangerous environment in literally every population on Earth, that intelligence differences in race don't make sense. I can admit differences in culture-building, but there is a lot more at work than just 'genetic intelligence'. As I said, intelligence is A) polygenic, so isn't as simple as alcohol tolerance or what have you, and also is something that develops throughout early development. Latest studies and theories seem to show that how intelligent you will be isn't entirely decided by your genetics, instead how much cognitive exercise you receive as your brain develops. The more neural connections you require as you grow, from reading/complex tasks/whatever, the more complex your brain will be, and the more intelligent you will be. Do note that this difference in neurological complexity between humans of difference intelligence (who obviously can be of any ethnicity, there are definitely Yoruba Nigerian people who are more intelligent than your average European) is infinitesimally small in comparison to the intelligence differences between anatomically modern humans and their closest living relative, Pan troglodytes.

>>5882528

Wealth is measurable objectively, the worth of a culture is not.

If someone has £10, they obviously have more than someone with £1. Everyone must admit to this. However, cultural worth is something that can be defined objectively. Some might value Beninese bronzes higher than the Mona Lisa, for any number of reasons.

>>5882529

Intelligence is really difficult to define, though.

And what part is unintelligible?

And do I need to define IQ for you?

>>5882522

I don't mean intelligence as a phenotype, I mean individual intelligence of individual organisms and specimens of Homo sapiens. It is subject to the environment you personally develop in during your adolescence, and that's not just how much knowledge and how many skills you retain. That includes your problem-solving and cognitive abilities.

>>5882542

*B) Latest studies

>>5882542

>had to contend with such a complex and dangerous environment in literally every population on Earth
Winter is not something that the average subsaharian human has to worry about.
There's a reason there are no wild monkeys in the forests of Europe.
The only primates that are left in Europe are the ones that were smart enough to heat themselves somehow.

>that intelligence differences in race don't make sense.
Yet they exist and we measure them.

>As I said, intelligence is A) polygenic, so isn't as simple as alcohol tolerance or what have you, and also is something that develops throughout early development.
Mutate MeCP2 and you get brain issues known as Rett Syndrome. One gene can be enough to cause issues in the brain.

>Latest studies and theories seem to show that how intelligent you will be isn't entirely decided by your genetics, instead how much cognitive exercise you receive as your brain develops.
True for every single trait, intelligence is not an exception.

>The more neural connections you require as you grow, from reading/complex tasks/whatever, the more complex your brain will be, and the more intelligent you will be.
People can't become infinitely intelligent by getting infinite input.

>Do note that this difference in neurological complexity between humans of difference intelligence (who obviously can be of any ethnicity, there are definitely Yoruba Nigerian people who are more intelligent than your average European) is infinitesimally small in comparison to the intelligence differences between anatomically modern humans and their closest living relative, Pan troglodytes.
There are some very smart monkeys and some very dumb humans.
Children can be dumber than adult monkeys for example.

>>5882551
Get two cultures to compete in a task, whoever comes out first is the winner.
The task could be "conquer the world" or "go to space" first.

>>5882559
That's a phenotype you're describing here.

>>5882520

is this 'superculture' theory established, or did you come up with it?

it's a persuasive idea, because geographically distant 15th century european nations like portugal and poland always had closer cultural ties via religion and literature etc. than similarly distant 15th century african nations like mali and zimbabwe, which were only really linked through trade

would you define islamic culture as a 'superculture'?

>>5882574

>Winter is not something that the average subsaharian human has to worry about.

Venomous reptiles/arachnids and an excess of dangerous megafauna is not something the average European human would need to worry about after the Last Glacial Maximum, and neither is a severely arid and hot environment.

>Yet they exist and we measure them.

We measured them in like the 70s in some Midwestern US state. I do not trust any of those tests and I would rather others were conducted with more reliable and updated methods.

>One gene can be enough to cause issues in the brain.

That's a defect, though.

>People can't become infinitely intelligent by getting infinite input.

Did I say that? That's one of the worst straw man responses I've ever recieved.

>Get two cultures to compete in a task, whoever comes out first is the winner.
>The task could be "conquer the world" or "go to space" first.

If both cultures had equal opportunities, they would achieve this at more or less the same rate, potentially in different ways. However, no two cultures have had the same opportunities or influences or histories at any point, or they would be basically identical.
And some cultures might have their strengths not in science or conquering.

>Children can be dumber than adult monkeys for example.

An adolescent vs an adult is not what I meant. And no matter how 'dumb' the human is, or 'smart' the monkey is, the monkey will still not be able to best the human in tasks we define as innately human - communication/creativity etc.

>That's a phenotype you're describing here.

Yup, I was wrong, I forgot the definition.

>>5882574

>There's a reason there are no wild monkeys in the forests of Europe.

prehistorybabby please leave, before the ice ages fucked everything up there were plenty of european apes >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreopithecus

>In a paper published Wednesday in the journal PLOS One, researchers say an analysis of the enamel on ancient ape molars shows that dietary specialization among different species left them unable to adapt to a rapidly cooling environment at the close of the Miocene epoch. "Overall, our analysis supports the view that the same dietary specialization that enabled Western Eurasian hominoids to face progressive climatic deterioration was the main factor ultimately leading to their extinction when more drastic paleoenvironmental changes took place," wrote lead author Daniel DeMiguel, a researcher at the Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont in Barcelona, and his colleagues. Researchers examined microscopic pits and scrapes on the enamel of ancient ape molars to determine whether they ate dense foods, like nuts and hard-shelled fruits, or leaves, grasses and soft fruits. DeMiguel and his colleagues concluded that leaves and stems were not a primary diet of any of the various species of ape in Europe or western Asia, as previously believed.


do not fuck with me on extinct primates nigga

File: Nasser_in_Mansoura,_1960(1).jpg (444KB, 2000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 2000x1250px

>>5882584

Islamic culture was a superculture during the period of the Islamic Golden Age. It has been split into several other cultures since then, and has been particularly effected by European supercultural influences (things from democracy and socialism to neckties and tarmac, but these are just the result of globalisation and European cultural imperialism.)

Some examples of other past supercultures are the European Megalithic superculture (which wouldn't be classed a superculture today but was so gigantic at the time it only works as one in retrospect.) There's also been a form of Asian superculture that's existed for many centuries. Supercultures can overlap, but have mostly been split up since the 18/19th century and the ideologies of ethnic nationalism and ethnic culturalism occurred. Before then, at least in Europe, it was religious culturalism, which was far more universal.

Afro-Eurasia can basically be defined by three main supercultures interacting over history - European superculture, Western Asian superculture and East Asian superculture - with the ball of innovation and discourse being passed from one end of the super-continent to the other. Sub-Saharan Africa was partially removed from this system by the Sahara, so wasn't involved in the Eurasian culture web. They still developed many different cultures and civilisations, however.

Things like Slavic culture and African American culture are just normal cultures, they simply end their jurisdiction at the boundaries of ethnic groups, rather than at national boundaries.

>>5882612
>Venomous reptiles/arachnids and an excess of dangerous megafauna is not something the average European human would need to worry about after the Last Glacial Maximum, and neither is a severely arid and hot environment.

Obviously subsaharian Africans evolved specific immune responses, the most well-known being the sickle-cell associated polymorphism.
Interestingly genes associated with the immune system are also associated with brain development.
One could imagine that investing in your immune system because of specific survival requirement would lead to a thread-off in other areas, for example areas that would help you plan during winter.

>We measured them in like the 70s in some Midwestern US state. I do not trust any of those tests and I would rather others were conducted with more reliable and updated methods.
Research is still ongoing. It's called psychometrics. IQ tests are used to determine if a child requires specific attention.

>That's a defect, though.
It shows that a single gene can have tremendous influence over the complex brain.
Subtle genetic changes can very well lead to big cognitive changes. This is the current picture for psychiatric diseases.

>Did I say that? That's one of the worst straw man responses I've ever recieved.
>the more neural connections... the more intelligent
With infinite neural connections you'd grow infinitely intelligent, right? Problem is the size of the brain is limited by the size of the skull, and what do you know, there's a variability with geography!

>If both cultures had equal opportunities
They didn't, that's evolution for you.

>And some cultures might have their strengths not in science or conquering.
Yes, they are inferior in science or conquering, that's my point.

>the monkey will still not be able to best the human in tasks we define as innately human - communication/creativity etc.
Depends which monkey and which human you picked.

>>5882627
>successfuly baiting you in feeding me information
Ha!

>before the ice ages fucked everything up there were plenty of european apes
That was exactly my point.
While the cold was selecting out all those inferior, dumb apes, the inferior apes were still chilling in Africa.

>>5882574
>The only primates that are left in Europe are the ones that were smart enough to heat themselves somehow.

your entire argument fell down when you said this dumb shit and proved that you don't understand how evolution or natural selection works

>HURR DURR THE ONLY PIGEONS LEFT IN EUROPE ARE THE ONE THAT WERE SMART ENOUGH TO HEAT THEMSELVES SOMEHOW

Nope it's just the ones with thicker feathers.

intelligence isn't the be all and end all of primate evolution or evolution in general, in fact in terms of sustainability it's a grand old fuck up

>>5882660
I keep misspelling that word for some reason.

>One could imagine that investing in your immune system because of specific survival requirements would lead to a thrade-off in other areas, for example areas that would help you plan during winter.

>>5882676

>your entire argument fell down when you said this dumb shit and proved that you don't understand how evolution or natural selection works
It's a matter of adaptability, of versatility.
The issue with the diet of these apes >>5882627 might have more to do with the digestive system than cognition, but it doesn't change the idea that humans had to develop different traits recently to survive different conditions.
There was some kind of selection among humans in Europe after all, as the Sapiens-Neanderthal admixture won over the Neanderthal.

>intelligence isn't the be all and end all of primate evolution or evolution in general, in fact in terms of sustainability it's a grand old fuck up
How so?

>>5882660

>Obviously subsaharian Africans evolved specific immune responses, the most well-known being the sickle-cell associated polymorphism.

Like what? I've not heard of Sub-Saharans being more immune to, say, gaboon viper venom?

>Interestingly genes associated with the immune system are also associated with brain development.

Sauce?

>It shows that a single gene can have tremendous influence over the complex brain.

It shows that a gene suffering from a sporadic germline mutation, ie a defect, can have a tremendous effect on the brain. But the equivalent of that level of sporadic mutation would take longer than 200,000 years to develop naturally.

>With infinite neural connections you'd grow infinitely intelligent, right? Problem is the size of the brain is limited by the size of the skull, and what do you know, there's a variability with geography!

I said adolescence alone, which implies a time limit, immediately stopping any notions of 'infinity'. Obviously it only works within what is biologically capably. And more neural connections =/= physically larger brain (talking width, height etc.). Whales have huge brains with fewer neural connections. Your brain doesn't inflate the more you cognitively exercise, for christ's sake.

>They didn't, that's evolution for you.

That's cultural evolution, which is not related to biological evolution.

>Yes, they are inferior in science or conquering, that's my point.

Why is conquering important? I can understand how science might be, but scientific advances require opportunities, which many cultures don't have. On the other hand, someone might rate Australian Aboriginal art above European art. And please don't post some shitty Renaissance painting and some Dreamtime paintings and say 'hurr durr this one looks real the other one doesn't!!!1!!'

>Depends which monkey and which human you picked.

Again your weak grasp of primatology makes this odd claim rather annoyingly vague. Our greatest biological development as a species is speech. I'd like to see any other primate that can communicate ideas via speech better than any human.

>>5882666

>That was exactly my point. While the cold was selecting out all those inferior, dumb apes, the inferior apes were still chilling in Africa.

Well you're a dumbass, because we didn't evolve from Oreopithecus, which became extinct in the FUCKING MIOCENE. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and reached anatomical modernity 200,000 years ago, which doesn't leave nearly enough time for significant population differences.

>>5877013
The book is shit. You shouldnt even mention it here if you havent read it, it just shows that you are lazy and shit yourself; So get out, you piece of shit.

>>5882716

>How so?

Because we're killing the ecosystem we really do rely on.

Please don't tell me you're one of those anti-nature fucks.

>The issue with the diet of these apes >>5882627 (You) might have more to do with the digestive system than cognition, but it doesn't change the idea that humans had to develop different traits recently to survive different conditions.

These apes aren't the ancestors of humans, they're just an example of pre-human European apes.

>There was some kind of selection among humans in Europe after all, as the Sapiens-Neanderthal admixture won over the Neanderthal.

Oh God not this theory again, it's literally ancient aliens-tier.

>>5877044
That cover is hilarious

>>5882649

i think i like this better than racism..

>>5882748

>Like what? I've not heard of Sub-Saharans being more immune to, say, gaboon viper venom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_resistance_to_malaria

>Sauce?
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/link-between-immune-system-dysregulation-and-schizophrenia

http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/03/02/immune-system-strongly-tied-to-childrens-brain-development/66562.html

>But the equivalent of that level of sporadic mutation would take longer than 200,000 years to develop naturally.
Where'd you get that figure from?
Rates of mutation vary spatio-temporally.

>And more neural connections =/= physically larger brain (talking width, height etc.).
Depends what you mean by more.
10 times more maybe.
100 times more maybe.
1000 times more, no.
It's more a question of metabolism. The brain eats 20% of the body's glucose.
If you have 10 times more synapses then you need 10 times more energy to make that transmission.

>Whales have huge brains with fewer neural connections.
Obviously their brains aren't very close to ours.

>That's cultural evolution, which is not related to biological evolution.
Where do cultures come from?
Aliens?

>Why is conquering important?
More resources.

>On the other hand, someone might rate Australian Aboriginal art above European art.
Cool?

>Our greatest biological development as a species is speech. I'd like to see any other primate that can communicate ideas via speech better than any human.
There are humans unable to communicate.
Some autists for example.

>which doesn't leave nearly enough time for significant population differences.
See:
>>5882517

>>5882763
Well I can't predict the future. Maybe you're right and humanity is running to extinction.

>Please don't tell me you're one of those anti-nature fucks.
I'm not the one pretending we're all equal.

>Oh God not this theory again, it's literally ancient aliens-tier.
How do you explain Neandertal's variants in modern Asian humans?

>>5882822 cont

I'll try to find some review but early infections are also linked to autism.
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20080305_mindmatters_immune/

>>5882844
http://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/announcements/2014/06/gene-risk-factors-age-related-brain-disorders-may-affect-immune
>In contrast, known gene risk factors for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases influenced the function of monocytes.
This recent GWAS for schizophrenia:
>Independent of genes expressed in brain, associations were enriched among genes expressed in tissues that have important roles in immunity, providing support for the speculated link between the immune system and schizophrenia.

http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/news/2013/11/810.asp
This one is interesting, they looked at different mammalian species it seems.

These guys are very interesting too:
>Two years ago, Parham and other researchers suggested that interbreeding with now-extinct cousins such as Neanderthals and Denisovans may have given early humans a boost of immunity.
>Humans are unique among primates in having two variants of the genes that control the receptors for natural killer cells.
>Parham and Moffett speculate that the A variant was important when a population was facing a disease epidemic, while the B variant became important for brain-building once the epidemic passed.
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682451-big-brains-vs-strong-immunity-genes-hint-at-evolutionary-tug-of-war?lite

>>5882822

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_resistance_to_malaria

So malaria is now a form of venomous reptile/invertebrate or dangerous species of megafauna, huh?

>http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/link-between-immune-system-dysregulation-and-schizophrenia

Haha, same! That was also the first thing that came up when I typed in 'genes associated with the immune system are also associated with brain development.'. It also doesn't really work since it's just applying to people with a mental illness. And it implies that a degraded mental state leads to immune system dysregulation, not that a strong immune system means less intelligence. Also, how the FUCK is having a strong immune system useful when confronting African rock pythons or them big fucking eagles they had? (I don't know a lot about African birds of prey, sorry).


>http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/03/02/immune-system-strongly-tied-to-childrens-brain-development/66562.html

Please stop linking me to articles about brain development and diseases! There was no great surplus of human infections in Sub-Saharan Africa before civilisation developed in comparison to Europe! That was an issue both sets of populations would have had to have faced.

>Where'd you get that figure from?

That's how long anatomically modern humans have existed universally.

>Rates of mutation vary spatio-temporally.

They don't vary enough to mimic a sporadic germline mutation in less than a mega-annum.

>It's more a question of metabolism. The brain eats 20% of the body's glucose.

Exactly, it's not a question of cranial capacity/skull width. And I don't think even you would claim that Europeans have 1000 times more neural connections than Sub-Saharan Africans.

>Obviously their brains aren't very close to ours.

They are actually, speaking in relative terms of course, because cetaceans are mammals also. Although many cetaceans have a great number of cortical neurons, after Homo sapiens, the species with the greatest number of cortical neurons and synapses is the elephant, and they have smaller brains than large cetaceans.

>Where do cultures come from?
>Aliens?

Cultures are, as I have said before, cognitive responses to the environment alone. If you were transplanted at birth from whatever your cultural background is to another one entirely, an entirely hypothetical one where the people differ from you biologically on the smallest level, you would not show any tendency to recreate the culture your parents were from. It's not biologically innate to build that culture.

>Cool?

It proves the subjectivity of culture.

>There are humans unable to communicate.
>Some autists for example.

Please stop citing people with what we would commonly refer to as 'defects'. I obviously meant human beings with basic communicative abilities, the most obvious being speech, something which no other primate is capable of in quite the same way.

CONT.

File: IdoUxEF.jpg (51KB, 599x561px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 599x561px

Could someone please post a textual example from Guns, Germs, and Steel exemplifying its SJW status?

>>5882894

cont.

>which doesn't leave nearly enough time for significant population differences.
See:
>>5882517

I've already said about this post, cognitive changes on an evolutionary scale are not comparable to changes in alcohol tolerance. It took us almost a million years to cognitively develop beyond our most recent ancestor, H. heidelbergensis, and then another 3/4 of a million years to develop further. The 200,000 years since we became anatomically modern just isn't long enough.

>I'm not the one pretending we're all equal.

Except the fact that our destruction of the environment and its lack of sustainability/the threat it poses to our ecological security as a species is far more accepted within the wider scientific community than 'hurr niggerz are dumb'.

>How do you explain Neandertal's variants in modern Asian humans?

I've read some theories about this, but mild admixture =/= mixing to produce a 'superior' breed of hominid. It is more likely that we were in competition with H.neanderthalensis, instead of bumping uglies with them. And Sub-Saharan Africans had contemporary hominids too, you know.

>>5882890

I don't understand your point, are you implying that only Sub-Saharans suffered alzheimer's/parkinson's/schizophrenia/etc.?

>>5877388
>Canada paler than the rest of Western Europe and America

Holy shit, fuck these immigration laws

>>5877388
This correlates rather suspiciously with prosperous countries

>>5877388
>China having the highest IQ in the world

Funny

>>5882935

That's because improved education = improved cognitive development at a young age = improved IQ.

Also it can be assumed that more thorough and universal IQ tests have been done in, say, the USA and Western European countries than in the fucking DRC.

>>5882943
>improved education = improved cognitive development at a young age = improved IQ.
This makes sense. Do you have a source on hand about this?

>>5882894
>So malaria is now a form of venomous reptile/invertebrate or dangerous species of megafauna, huh?
No why?
I was talking about the immune system and its relation to the brain.

>It also doesn't really work since it's just applying to people with a mental illness.
Schizophrenia is thought to be developmental disorder, at least by some.
As in the people with this disorder have had issue with brain development.
Thus the genes giving risk factors for schizophrenia would also be associated with brain development. It's a long shot.

>And it implies that a degraded mental state leads to immune system dysregulation, not that a strong immune system means less intelligence.
Some I've cited make the link between brain size and immune system trade-off.

>Also, how the FUCK is having a strong immune system useful when confronting African rock pythons or them big fucking eagles they had?
Bacteria, viruses and parasites kill more than big animals.

>There was no great surplus of human infections in Sub-Saharan Africa before civilisation developed in comparison to Europe!
Why did malaria resistance evolve in Africa and not Europe then?

>That's how long anatomically modern humans have existed universally.
Yes, but where did you get the idea that 200000 years wasn't enough for a single mutation to happen and spread?

>They don't vary enough to mimic a sporadic germline mutation in less than a mega-annum.
Source?

>And I don't think even you would claim that Europeans have 1000 times more neural connections than Sub-Saharan Africans.
I don't claim that, I'm merely aware of the evidence showing a difference in the distribution of the cognitive abilities between the two populations and wondering about their evolutionary origin.

>Although many cetaceans have a great number of cortical neurons, after Homo sapiens, the species with the greatest number of cortical neurons and synapses is the elephant, and they have smaller brains than large cetaceans.
I don't really see the relevance.

>Cultures are, as I have said before, cognitive responses to the environment alone.
The environment is made of other individuals tho.

>where the people differ from you biologically on the smallest level, you would not show any tendency to recreate the culture your parents were from.
I disagree. If your parents were significantly smarter than the population you were brought to, you would show significant differences in behavior compared to the host culture.
Your behavior will not correspond to your parents' culture, but it will not correspond to your host culture either. This is why some immigrants fail to adapt to the host culture.

>It's not biologically innate to build that culture.
Nothing is biologically innate, but cultures depend on animals, which are biological constructs.

>It proves the subjectivity of culture.
Which can be subjectively ranked.

>I obviously meant human beings with basic communicative abilities
Well we're talking about human variability.

File: eat my ass.png (78KB, 225x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 225x400px

>>5882951

not on hand no, but i read it in a paper somewhere so it's bound to turn up if you give it a search i think

>>5882935
Smart humans are more capable of dominating their environment.

>>5879139
Ask a member of the nation of Canada
Oh wait, they don't exist anymore. The Canadian nation was declared dead in 1988.
[Thanks multiculturalism]

>>5879227
Tibet, Singapore, Sweden, Norway, Canada

England, France and Germany in ten years
America in 50

>>5882928
>I've already said about this post, cognitive changes on an evolutionary scale are not comparable to changes in alcohol tolerance.
I disagree.
What you, as an early 21th century human, is capable to accomplish, is very different from what an early 20th century human is capable of accomplishing.
The wealth of information you have access to has drastically changed.
As you have asserted before, the more neural connections you require, the smarter you will get.
One can imagine you'd need more neural connections now so you'd be smarter. Or the opposite because it's so easy these days to find and process info.
In a little century we already have such a high impact, and you don't think something like the development of agriculture or the industrial revolution could have had similar effects?

>Except the fact that our destruction of the environment and its lack of sustainability/the threat it poses to our ecological security as a species is far more accepted within the wider scientific community than 'hurr niggerz are dumb'.
I'm not claiming some kind of rightfulness. I'm only interested in searching the truth.
'hurr niggerz are dumb' is successfully tested every day. That's not what we're discussing here.

>It is more likely that we were in competition with H.neanderthalensis, instead of bumping uglies with them.
How did we get the variants?

>I don't understand your point, are you implying that only Sub-Saharans suffered alzheimer's/parkinson's/schizophrenia/etc.?

The idea is that Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, schizophrenia are brain diseases and that the same genes linked to these brain-related diseases are also immune system-related, making me think that the same brain that controls how the brain develops and lead to different levels of intelligence might also control how the immune system develop.

>>5882987
Damn it's getting hard.
>What you, as an early 21th century human, is capable of accomplishing, is very different from what an early 20th century human is capable of accomplishing.

>the same genes that control how the brain develops and lead to different levels of intelligence might also control how the immune system develops.

>>5877013
The problem is not imaginary "SJW"ism, which'd pretty much be a way of saying "it does not support the 19:th century racial theories that I subscribe to", but he has his problems.
He isn't really THAT wrong, but his theories aren't very accurate. One problem would be that similar environmental factors can have vastly different societal influences. Another problem (from the viewpoint of a historian) is his fixation with the rather short period of colonisation of the New World.

But well... How in the bloody hell do you think, say, the Mayans could have developed iron forging when where they lived these metals didn't even bloody exist? Neverminding North American metalworking in general, but problems like this kind of exemplify why many people have a really fucking stunted understanding of history.

>>5882954

Ok your first three points still don't make sense to me, because it's not as if humans in Europe needed their immune systems less than humans in Africa.

>Bacteria, viruses and parasites kill more than big animals.

Yeah, equally so in Europe and Africa during the period we're talking.

>Why did malaria resistance evolve in Africa and not Europe then?

Because malaria wasn't as common in Europe as in Africa (mosquitoes prefer humid environments). But diseases like smallpox were more common in Europe than in Africa, and we developed immunities to those.

>Yes, but where did you get the idea that 200000 years wasn't enough for a single mutation to happen and spread?
>Source

I'm not sure what hypothetical mutation would make Europeans more intelligent than Sub-Saharan Africans, but before I theorise about the necessary rate I would need to know which specific class of mutation, for instance point mutations, small or large scale insertions or deletions, it would be. Theory on the evolution of mutation rates identifies three principal forces involved: the generation of more deleterious mutations with higher mutation, the generation of more advantageous mutations with higher mutation, and the metabolic costs and reduced replication rates that are required to prevent mutations. Different conclusions are reached based on the relative importance attributed to each force.

>I don't claim that, I'm merely aware of the evidence showing a difference in the distribution of the cognitive abilities between the two populations and wondering about their evolutionary origin.

But only when the difference in neural connections reached enough to recognisably change the brain mass would the cranial width become relevant.

>I don't really see the relevance.

Well as far as I understand it you claimed that a smaller skull = smaller brain = less neural connections/cortical neurons/synapses = less cognitive ability, which is proven false by the human having the smallest skull and brain out of humans, elephants and cetaceans, but having the most neural connections, with elephants having the second smallest, and the second most neural connections.

>The environment is made of other individuals tho.

I am talking about during cultural genesis, when the other individuals are part of the development of culture in response to a natural environment too.

>If your parents were significantly smarter than the population you were brought to, you would show significant differences in behavior compared to the host culture.

Only if you were educated enough during early cognitive development, but my implication is that your early intelligence would not make a difference. I am more intelligent than both of my biological parents in terms of my IQ score.

>This is why some immigrants fail to adapt to the host culture.

That is entirely to do with cultural conditioning.

>>5882954
>culture depends on animals
The lions with longer hair will dance in X way, lions with shorter hair Y.
Lion with longer hair doesn't like lion with shorter hair's dancing moves goes to kill him in the name of monoculturalism.

>>5882980
I notice a lot of those countries are doing very well in IQ terms.

>>5882951
It fits in with the Flynn-effect and epigenetics.

>>5883012
What does that have to do with anything, who gives a fuck about IQ

>>5877345
I'm black and I believe this but I hate /pol/. What do?

>>5883019
Some racists in this thread.

>>5883023
/pol/ are shitposting faggots, everyone hates them. What opinions they have is irrelevant

File: Ricky.jpg (92KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x376px

>>5883025
I wasn't talking about racism, I was talking about how fucking cancerous multiculturalism is

>>5877388
>Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden blowing France the fuck out
nice

>>5882980
>Sweden
Perhaps in some years, but generally Swedish immigrants have been either Finns or Poles. Now of course the Finns have caused troubles and even have their own cultural spheres in Sweden, but I'd not go as far as call them problematic.
>Norway
That's true. The Swedes, the Poles and the Lithuanians have caused SO much trouble lately, what with them making up most of the immigrant population to Norway.

>lol

>>5882954
>>5882987

>Nothing is biologically innate, but cultures depend on animals, which are biological constructs.

Do you mean animals as in humans? If so, then they equally depend on the natural environment, if not more so. The Paleolithic basis for European culture was based around the natural environment our ancestors inhabited.

>Which can be subjectively ranked.

Which is entirely unscientific.

>Well we're talking about human variability.

Then we must put an autistic human against an autistic ape, or the equivalent.

>As you have asserted before, the more neural connections you require, the smarter you will get.
>One can imagine you'd need more neural connections now so you'd be smarter. Or the opposite because it's so easy these days to find and process info.
>In a little century we already have such a high impact, and you don't think something like the development of agriculture or the industrial revolution could have had similar effects?

This wouldn't could as natural evolution, more self-imposed evolution (not imposed intentionally, of course). And are you citing the development of agriculture because you don't believe Sub-Saharans developed it? Because they did. They had kingdoms and trade and things.

>'hurr niggerz are dumb' is successfully tested every day.

Haha wat.

>How did we get the variants?

Some aberrant cases. Not nearly enough admixture to form a differentiable hybrid of some kind.

>making me think that the same brain that controls how the brain develops and lead to different levels of intelligence might also control how the immune system develop.

Fair point, though I have already addressed the notion that Sub-Saharan Africans had to exercise their immune systems more.

>>5882990

It's getting hard for me, too, and it's late where I am.

I don't think we're going to persuade each other any time soon, but this has been an interesting rally of retorts, and has allowed us both to exercise our opinions and express ourselves well. If you want to keep discussing we can, but I'm getting tired of this and I kind of wanted to jack off before I went to sleep. I'm suggesting put this discussion on some kind of permanent hold. It's been fun though, and you're a civil dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>>5877013
People who call it "SJW bullshit" are incapable of separating things into categories other than "gospel truth" and "evil lies." Guns, Germs, and Steel is neither. It is an occasionally insightful, frequently boring attempt to flesh out the limits of geographical determinism, and it contains both a lot of useful information and a lot of repetition of the basic premise.

The thesis isn't really that strong, despite what detractors would have you think. It's not much more than "geography affects the way cultures develop, a lot," which I don't think anyone smart would really argue with. Sometimes the book sounds like it's saying "geography creates cultures 100%," it's really not.

Some cool stuff about the spread of languages in east and southeast Asia, too, and theories on the lack of domesticable animals in Australia, etc. The main thesis is the worst reason to read it, the little asides are the best.

Why won't /pol/ just leave.

>>5883007
>Ok your first three points still don't make sense to me, because it's not as if humans in Europe needed their immune systems less than humans in Africa.
Microbes like the heat.

>Yeah, equally so in Europe and Africa during the period we're talking.
Europeans (mostly) didn't have malaria, and didn't have trypanosomiasis, and other parasite-associated diseases.

>I'm not sure what hypothetical mutation would make Europeans more intelligent than Sub-Saharan Africans
Why'd you automatically disregard 200 000 years as too short then?

>But only when the difference in neural connections reached enough to recognisably change the brain mass would the cranial width become relevant.
Yes different brain masses in different populations.

>Well as far as I understand it you claimed that a smaller skull = smaller brain = less neural connections/cortical neurons/synapses = less cognitive ability
While controlling for a similar structure obviously. The human neocortex is folded over itself, in order to increase the density of cells within the same volume.

>which is proven false by the human having the smallest skull and brain out of humans, elephants and cetaceans
These don't have these specific structures.

>Only if you were educated enough during early cognitive development, but my implication is that your early intelligence would not make a difference.
Good thing we have adoption studies to show that parental intelligence matters more than adoptive family intelligence.

> I am more intelligent than both of my biological parents in terms of my IQ score.
That happens, statistically.

>That is entirely to do with cultural conditioning.
If you say so.

>>5883041

>If so, then they equally depend on the natural environment, if not more so.
I don't see why you're constantly attempting to put the environment in this, as if the environment isn't the reason evolution exists and gene variants exist in the first place.

>Then we must put an autistic human against an autistic ape, or the equivalent.
I don't see why you're trying to do such comparisons anyway.

>This wouldn't could as natural evolution, more self-imposed evolution (not imposed intentionally, of course).
Culture is a form of self-imposed evolution.

>And are you citing the development of agriculture because you don't believe Sub-Saharans developed it? Because they did. They had kingdoms and trade and things.
I'm not saying they didn't.
They didn't do it at the same time.

>Haha wat.
The Bell Curve describes such results. And since then more tests have been done.
You can see some of them here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

>Not nearly enough admixture to form a differentiable hybrid of some kind.
I don't know, all these terms seem muddy to me anyway.

>I have already addressed the notion that Sub-Saharan Africans had to exercise their immune systems more.
Still to these days they struggle more with epidemics than Europeans do.
European brains even came up with a way to develop immunity without directly investing in it in a metabolic way.
Bye

File: back-to-reddit.jpg.jpg (229KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 717x880px

>>5877027
>le

>>5877013
It is NOT SJW bullshit. I'm white and I read it. It does not say anything bad about white people. People say stuff like that because they just can't stand the idea of their not being special.

It's not a great book but it's pretty good. It's mostly about the neolithic revolution and it's pretty informative.

>>5883064

>Microbes like the heat.

Micoorganisms can be psychrophiles, mesophiles, thermophiles or hyperthermophiles.

>Europeans (mostly) didn't have malaria, and didn't have trypanosomiasis, and other parasite-associated diseases.

They still had equally deadly diseases.

>Why'd you automatically disregard 200, 000 years as too short then?

Ok, In general, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.1×10^−8 per site per generation. That's 0.000000011. If a generation is 20 years, then 200,000 years is 10,000 generations. That's 10,000 generations of completely modern man. 10,000 x 0.000000011 = 0.00011. The average sporadic de novo mutation rate (so that for Rett Syndrome) is 1.20×10−8 per nucleotide per generation. That's 10,000 X 0.00012 = 0.00012. That rate is 0.00001 too fast.

Dude I'm tired of maths-ing.

>Good thing we have adoption studies to show that parental intelligence matters more than adoptive family intelligence.

Swear those were inconclusive?

>>5883087

>The Bell Curve

Got fucking dammit i've been memed again

>>5883159

>Ok, In general, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.1×10^−8 per site per generation. That's 0.000000011. If a generation is 20 years, then 200,000 years is 10,000 generations. That's 10,000 generations of completely modern man. 10,000 x 0.000000011 = 0.00011. The average sporadic de novo mutation rate (so that for Rett Syndrome) is 1.20×10−8 per nucleotide per generation. That's 10,000 X 0.00012 = 0.00012. That rate is 0.00001 too fast.

woot racists btfo with maths

>>5883087
>The Bell Curve
>>>/pol/

>>5883114
Ok I'm going to doublepost. I didn't realize how many nationalist retards were in this thread.

>>5877086
>Sometimes it seems a bit circular - Eurasia had the best crops because look at what the best crops turned out to be

There is nothing at all circular about that. Did you see the table comparing masses? Mass is objective.

>People on other continents could have done something more - domesticated some kind of pulses or beans, or some other kind of animal

You say he repeated himself a lot but apparently it still wasn't enough. He literally goes on and on explaining that all of the plants and animals which were domesticated in ancient times are the only ones capable of being domesticated, and backs this up with evidence. If a certain region didn't domesticate an animal in it in during neolithic times then it wasn't going to magically start being able to domesticate it during history. And historically, outside colonizers have done no better at domesticating undomesticable animals than the natives.

>>5877101
>He attempts to show that the reason the West came to dominate is purely the result of geographic and economic factors.

Except it doesn't claim that. There are literally dozens of disclaimers about this. All he is trying to do is show how geography and ecology affected history. He explicitly says that the influence of those things doesn't preclude the influence of culture or decisive events, but he says that those things are essentially random variables which is why it makes more sense to look at history from the perspective of geography and ecology.

>A bit deterministic

A bit deterministic? History is completely deterministic. What else would it be, fucking magic?


>>5877342
It isn't trying to prove anything about genetics. It's trying to prove things about human history.


I'm going to stop here. Too many shitposts in this thread to go on.

>>5883159
>Micoorganisms can be psychrophiles, mesophiles, thermophiles or hyperthermophiles.
The ones that want to live in us need to appreciate 37°C.

>They still had equally deadly diseases.
Probably not as often. I'm not too informed about this.

>That rate is 0.00001 too fast.
I'm not sure what you're calculating here.
This might be relevant:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html
>Most strikingly, in one family, we observed that 92% of germline DNMs were from the paternal germline, whereas, in contrast, in the other family, 64% of DNMs were from the maternal germline. These observations suggest considerable variation in mutation rates within and between families.
Seems like a lot of variability.

>>5883163
>>5883185
>hurr I hate books
/lit/

>>5883247

no i just hate shitty books that purport to be scientific but have little grounding in science

>>5883247
The Bell Curve fails because it attempts to rationalize the order of political improvement and say it's connected with intelligence or that somehow sinecures are only received by the intellectually superior.

One of the rules of Adam Smith was that the wages of labor, yes I am really talking about the wages of labor to prove my point, since that is such a central topic in The Bell Curve, SHOULD be compensated by the general unwholesomeness or uncleanliness of the work, and that is simply not the case today, in fact as capitalism proselytize areas, we see a general degradation in the logical compensation of employees based on time invested learning (but I will not count this one completely, because 'Whatever forces people to a university independent of a teacher's individual merit or reputation tends to lower their MERIT or reputation')

We see today the monetization of academia, the lowering of wages for farmers, our most important workers, and even companies contracting farming equipment/property to farmers on a profit-based approach, as if sinking their teeth into agricultural progress will solve anything.

Meanwhile, the agricultural output is absolutely ruining the environment. Methane and arsenic gets into the atmosphere through intensely large amounts of feces spread over large areas, countries like Germany actually recognize this serious problem. Meanwhile all we have to rationalize our agricultural expansion is misery and vice, the famous Malthusian sociological positive checks on population expansion, the one thing holding back China from putting more of its countryfolk to farming rice paddies.

>>5883247

I fucking worked out the rate necessary for the equivalent of a sporadic de novo mutation comparable to Rett syndrome MECP2 mutation to occur over 200,000 years, and it was faster than the human genome mutation rate by 0.00001 per site per generation. That may not seem like a lot but it is in terms of the minute mutations that occur generation to generation. I fucking did loads of maths dude.

Also germline isn't really relevant because

>In at least 95% of Rett syndrome cases, the cause is a de novo mutation in the child.

And if a de novo mutation similar to that which causes defects in MECP2 were to take 200,000 years to occur, as it would have to (and that's being generous) then it would have a rate of 0.000000012 (I typed my equation wrong in my first post) per nucleotide per generation, which is faster than the human genome mutation rate can manage over 200,000 years.

>>5883247
>>hurr I hate books
>/lit/
Of course we hate books, newfag. Many/most books deserve to be hated and others adored.

>>5883308
>>5883308
Mathematical posts always take a bit longer to complete.

>>5883246

I'm going to say one last thing, which is that I think it is very telling that when people think about history, they feel the need to 'explain' or 'vindicate' the current state of the world and the recent centuries of European colonialism that led to it. There is an automatic assumption that Europeans made the modern world and are responsible for 'civilization', and the question immediately jumps to what about being European or European culture makes them super special. But they aren't special. And this romantic and simplistic view of history is dead wrong.

Especially in the sense that there is nothing qualitatively different between European colonialism and previous colonialisms. There have literally always been migrations, conquests, and assimilations between all sorts of different ethnic groups all throughout history. The ethnic groups that people commonly think about literally do not exist in any discrete objective sense because they are only the most recent combination of genes in a given area resulting from an endless cycle of migration, sublimation, genocide, assimilation, intermarriage, etc. European colonialism is literally just the most recent example of cultural blending, which was the largest in scale because the technology that happened to exist at the time allowed it to be the largest in scale.

Again, I don't even like this book very much. In my opinion it isn't bad but it isn't great either. But it is not 'anti-white'. That is retarded. It is so blatantly obvious that these people are refusing to look at history except through the view of pop culture, and the objective physical limitations on the ability of people to learn extensively about places in the world that are far away and speak a different language. If you actually took the time and effort to become an expert about some region in the developing world, you would probably find that it has a long and complex history full of significant individuals and their accomplishments. And yes it would be exaggerated too, if it was told by a person native to that place. But instead people like to just assume that the romanticized, exaggerated stories handed down to them about their own culture are unique and not exaggerated or romanticized, because that's something only incompetent foreigners need to go through the trouble of doing to their history. Pure ideology.

One more thing. I think it is very telling that the people who cry about the 'death of western civilization' or some variation of the theme, tend to be precisely the ones who know the least about it. I myself am a europhile. I love European history and I've been learning about it for years. It is precisely because of this that I happen to know many of the subtleties in it, and the unromantic truths that people want to ignore. And it is precisely because of this that I know how retarded it is when people act as if 'the west' created 'civilization', or that 'the west' exists as a discrete object at all.

>>5883274
Oh I wouldn't know I haven't read it ;)
From the description, it aimed at introducing non-scientists to some of the results of psychometricians, and made a bunch of interpretations of these results.
The average pop-sci book really.

>>5883302
>we see a general degradation in the logical compensation of employees based on time invested learning
Do we?
That might not mean that the smartest are unfairly compensated.
If you can learn the same thing in 6 months instead of 1 year, you're probably smarter than those who needed 1 year.
If you can found a start-up which will make you a billionaire without completing your higher-education, maybe you have exceptional creativity and intelligence.

>>5883316

Ok...

/lit/, please stop promoting and responding to /pol/ threads. They're coming here because they don't want to look at scrolling text anymore. OP doesn't care about the book, he wants to race-bait. If you want to talk about this and it's politically motivated, post it on /pol/. If it's scientifically motivated, post in on /sci/.

Stop letting /pol/ soapbox on /lit/ with a .jpg of a book they didn't read.

>>5883319
>hurrr start-up logic
Founding your own business is nice, but you will only earn what you put into it. This geometrical expansion of profit due to compounding interest should be an obvious concept and is exemplified in the following phrase: 'It takes money to make money'. Society is tiered by the Marxist 'necessities' that bar the vast majority of sections of the population from each other and geometrical wealth expansion, which Piketty duly notes is even rising over time, as compared with average annual growth.

>>5883308
MeCP2 was just an example m8, and as simple as it may seem, it's quite complicated already.
There are people with the mutation who show no medical signs whatsoever.

>And if a de novo mutation similar to that which causes defects in MECP2 were to take 200,000 years to occur, as it would have to (and that's being generous) then it would have a rate of 0.000000012 (I typed my equation wrong in my first post) per nucleotide per generation, which is faster than the human genome mutation rate can manage over 200,000 years
That's fancy but this is all estimated from average mutation rates over thousands of years. Very speculative.
About as speculative as my claims.

>>5883320
?

IN A LOUD VOICE, IN A SOFT VOICE OR WITHOUT ANY VOICE AT ALL, WE ASKED THAT WE BE GIVEN JUSTICE. THE SITUATION, ALAS, JUST GOT WORSE.

- Sony Labou Tansi, Le commencement des douleurs

>>5883333

>MeCP2 was just an example m8

As was my response too it.

>About as speculative as my claims.

Yeah but didn't that maths go HARD AS HELL?

I'm so bad at maths I don't think you get how happy I am dude.

>>5883336

??? :3

>>5883345

*to it

JESUDHV CHRIST

>>5883350
:3 C=====3

>>5883356

:3 post benis pls

>>5883331
>Founding your own business is nice, but you will only earn what you put into it.
>'It takes money to make money'.
Microsoft, google, facebook. All started with money?

>Society is tiered by the Marxist 'necessities' that bar the vast majority of sections of the population from each other and geometrical wealth expansion, which Piketty duly notes is even rising over time, as compared with average annual growth.
By definition, the vast majority of the population does not peak in intelligence.

>>5883345
Well I'm bad at maths too but I'm not sure taking average numbers and processing them together helps getting meaning out of it.
I mean, your 10-6 difference could be explained by the error on each estimate, maybe.
To settle this we'd have to find recently evolved genes in the brain and we'd be fine.

>>5883368
This has nothing to do with intelligence. Have you read the Materialist Conception of History by Marx?

Yeah it definitely took money to make those companies, A) the knowledge you need is not inexpensive in the first place, those opportunity costs of wages lost, and time spent learning esoteric things, although perhaps aided by memory, have less to do with intelligence than disposable income.

>>5883368

>the error on each estimate, maybe.

Yeah, they were very general. But generally, the difference dispels that example, in a general, estimation-y way.

Anyway brah, this has been actually really nice, night tho. xx

>>5883380
And
B) The equipment, connections, and genuine progression through the corporate world, although largely helped by angel/seed investing, is still impossible unless you have a strong financial foundation.

This isn't to say an idea can't make you rich, but being rich can give you ideas.

>>5883380
Nah.

>Yeah it definitely took money to make those companies, A) the knowledge you need is not inexpensive in the first place, those opportunity costs of wages lost, and time spent learning esoteric things, although perhaps aided by memory, have less to do with intelligence than disposable income.
>B) The equipment, connections, and genuine progression through the corporate world, although largely helped by angel/seed investing, is still impossible unless you have a strong financial foundation.
Out of all the American middle-class kids, only a few have started a successful start-up such as google, facebook or microsoft.
Surely there's a difference in intelligence, motivation, some kind of skill associated with success in this.

>>5883383
Bye.

>>5883368
There's this for recent evolution of the brain, <100 000 years.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

>>5883398
Yeah the difference is the money, I described it right there in the post. Intelligence and drive are factors, but these have nothing to do with the opportunities given to these people.

>>5883401
There are many people with the money but only a few succeed tho.
Keeping and increasing wealth is a skill that's sparsely distributed also.

>>5883413
Yeah and there are entire industries built around it. It's quintessentially retardation: a snake eating its own tail.

The reason why the Bell Curve sucks is because its message is retarded. It has no genuinely useful message for humanity other than : yeah just keep going, capitalism, I'm sure this will work out.

>>5883416
You seem awfully obsessed about capitalism.
If you don't want to buy anything it's fine, just don't.

That's consumerism, an aspect of capitalism, but nonetheless purposeless. Even I admit that capitalism has good aspects, but I truly think the method of progress up to this point is flawed, and much like how Nietzsche noticed that the Jews surmounted morality, so we have to realize that the capital owners surmounted intellectual progress at some point. Intellectual progress at one point being in the hands of the church, but then conveniently as science reared its head, capitalism, the embodiment of unattached virtues, virtues that truly alienate the working man, we just decided 'fuck religion and despots, democracy and science are the way to go'. Isn't it interesting how those two went together in the intellectual history of mankind. Don't you find it odd how, over time, we have separated ourselves from the fellow man rearing our subsistence.

Wake up. This is a dream, and you are on life support. Its name is capital: functionally defined as something either fixed or circulatory. As if we were a body that needed grease like money to run through our veins.

Here's the thing though, this circulatory capital we're exchanging for things, this is called money. This money..is debt. But debt we can never pay back. Debt that isn't worth anything so long as we don't have faith in the system of exchange that values lint. If you looked at the economic history of mankind, money has slowly but surely lost any intrinsic value. The Bretton woods agreement sealed the deal: money is currently worthless except for faith.

>>5883461
>>5883455
What is faith but interest? Interest rates have gone down over time. You sit there lost in a world of rationalizing progress.

>>5883464
>>5883461
>>5883455
4chans filters blocking my posts for some reason. Must mean they're good

Ir gotr ar fortuner cookier oncer. Itr saidr peopler liker progressrr, butr theyr hater changer'.

>>5883323
>if you don't believe in my views, you're illiterate

>>5877013
>I've seen a bunch of people say it's just SJW bullshit about how whites are all bad guys and how Europeans are responsible for other countries being third-world hellholes.
i can't believe this ain't bait.