If Asians are more intelligent on average than whites, how come

Most Asian nations are culturally conservative to the point of being a republicans wet dream. Societies that do not encourage innovation will just have people sit in their hands for fear of execution

>>8601101
Adding onto this, Asians were on top for a period

>>8601096
It's almost that intelligence isn't the objective measure of a population

>>8601096

Revisionist history.

>>8601096
Its called the Stereotype Lift effect, look it up

>>8601096
After a point, no one in China was funding research other than maybe their kings (how are dinasty leaders called?) while in the west there was a bigger science and entrepreneurship culture, with funding coming first from churches and then after the de-cuckification of europe from religion, from universities.

Plus, the government of China was way more authoritarian. There is a story of a chinese man (alive today) who proved a big theorem in number theory at the young age of fucking 60. Why 60? Because he had to work hard labor and could not attend school as his dad was an enemy of the state. He basically learned higher mathematics too late. His story now gets told because in the end he came on top but how many possible academics throughout the century would have become great researchers and inventors if not for petty political issues.

Communism is a cancer.
Not socialism though. Just want to make that clear.

>>8601117
This

>>8601096
higher iq and test scores are not just a measure of intelligence, but also of education level and in turn how much the society values education.

this is why you see iq/test scores increasing over time in nations where education is valued as is self improvement, and decreasing in nations like US that embrace nigger culture and wish to become brazil 2.0.

>>8602645
That old man's name?

Albert Einstein.

>>8601096
Mongols hated China more than they hated Europe

>>8601096
They weren't. Why do people who make these kinds of threads always historically retarded?

File: stereotype-lift.png (29KB, 790x405px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 790x405px

>>8602630
good call, Anon

>>8602709
Yeah true, look in east asia Japan and South Korea have high IQs and there pretty wealthy look at the less wealthy east Asian countries and they score poorly

IQ != creativity

While Asians are good are good at perfecting existing technology, they suck at inventing new stuff. It's gotten so bad that in China if you can invent stuff they will literally let you out of jail for any crime. Of course, this had lead to "underwriter inventors" who invent stuff on behalf of those in jail, for money of course.

File: Tiangong_Kaiwu_Coal_Mining.gif (27KB, 212x330px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 212x330px

>>8601096
the reason why the chinese didn't have an industrial revolution as soon as the british was because coal in china is extremely hard to extract, mostly because of lack of wood and poisonous gasses that would often kill workers.

File: fidel-castro.jpg (49KB, 816x687px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 816x687px

>>8601096

They were ahead of whites until 1500-1700 retard. Actually just about everyone else was

They came up withthe most accurate pi representation and shit like Gaussian elimination (Mozi) thousand years before Europe did, a math method that's above calculus level.

The first to invent suspension bridges, horseless carriages (sailing carts), the first encyclopedias, the most advanced ships until about 1600s, land mines and sea mines, escapement mechanisms, guns, the printing press 400 years before Guttenberg 'invented' it, rockets that were developed enough to be used in battle, etc.

Europe didn't even accept the concept of negatives numbers until fucking leibniz.

>but my sociology professor says whites were always on top because Shakespeare and Greece copied Babylon

Whites didn't do shit until 1700, Europe was the worst place to live until then.

> but then why isn't China ahead of Europe

Because eastern countries mind their own fucking business. India has never invaded another country and China never tried into any other country like Alexander the homo and British tried into India, at their primes.

Europe was into Africa and all over even with internal problems. The east's kindness was the only reason Europe rose. Free from harassment Europe copied and advanced technology for hundreds of years, only to destroy the old summer palace and try to rewrite history once they were on top

>>8603120
>Because eastern countries mind their own fucking business.
everything else about this explanation is pretty good, but I take issue with the idea that eastern countries aren't complete dicks as well.

The geographical barriers and issues with stretching supply lines, as well as the constant internal strife in china explains why they didn't try to conquer europe. Just take a look at the japanese, the mongols, etc to instantly resolve any issue in your mind that the east 'minds it's own business.'

Far above any cultural or genetic differences, china existed the way it did for centuries because of the geological and political issues that existed there.

see:
>>8602989
for why china didn't conquer the world. It's nothing fancy, nothing hard to understand, simple resource acquisition issues caused china to fail where Europeans happened to succeed.

>>8603141

Some eastern countries harass more than others. You can't escape India, and China was fine with those 'in it's territory', per se. I'll give that they were different within borders.

They had the resources to slap the Muslims and Tibetans on the wrist when they tried to block trade or misbehave and yet they never treated the Philippinos+etc the way the Portuguese and Spanish did.

Japan almost always trying to conquer China, no surprise what they did.

Resource delivery is not that big of deal, first rule is use the resources of those you conquer not to drag them halfway across the world.

Europe (France, British, etc) is/are not alone in their behavior, the Muslims and Persians were kind of the same with trying to conquer the world.

But that's not the only thing countries ever tried to do

>>8603120
Fake quote.

>>8603141
Yeah but this version doesn't make westerners the bad guys

My jewelry inspired philosophy requires me to root for the little guy

>>8603174
How did China get so large? Didn't they genocide a shit load of peoples?

File: warringstatesperiod.gif (80KB, 300x320px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 300x320px

>>8603187
>Some eastern countries harass more than others.
considering that the east has consistently been the most violent and destructive sector of the planet for the last 2,000 odd years, that's an understatement. The violence of the west pales in comparison to the wars, rebellions, and famines that occurred in the china alone, so much so that Chinese political doctrine had a hard enough time keeping itself together, let alone conquering other places.

>>8603187
pic related. long story short: famines, warlords.

I think that says more about the accidental nature of some of the West's advances than anything. They can be attributed to being at the right place at the right time.

If Romans were whites, why did they never get as far as modern Western civilization, despite being around for about as long?

>>8603120
Gaussian elimination is typically taught after single-variable calculus, but it's really fucking easy in comparison

>>8601096
Europe, outside of those areas connected with the middle east through the mediterranean, was a shithole for most of its history.
Since the invention of writing, for something like 3000 years every important innovation happened in the middle east first.
If race has a relation to development, it's clearly secondary.

>>8603248
>comparing past achievements against modern mathematics
Earlier mathematicians do the more basic stuff for us first. It's silly to compare when they had to advance mathematics while we just have to look back.

>fucking Kek took them so long to invent 0
>guise it's pretty fucking obvious the diameter of a circle has a constant ratio with its circumference and it's 3.1415...
>Lmao negative numbers

>gunpowder
>muskets
>rockets
>steel
what is the history of technology

>>8604225
>muskets
They invented handcannons you pleb not muskets.

>Steel
ffs have you actually open a historical textbook before?

>>8601104

>we wuz kangzz

>>8601096
>If Asians are more intelligent on average than whites, how come I still feel superior even though I never achieved a fucking thing in my life myself???

>>8604361
they waz for a while though.

I think Asian genetics degenerated at some point in China. The more ancient you go in China the more intelligent the writings. It seems like the mongols or some other group killed all the intelligent ones and degenerated the genes.

Middle East had something similar happen when baghdad was genocided which was a concentration of the best and brightest. I think the mongols tended to kill the best people of a civilization or society.

>>8602874
>They weren't.
They pretty much were for 500 years. The Japanese didn't even know how to treat steal until the Portuguese taught them and this was remarkable for the Chinese in later wars.

>>8603120
>Whites didn't do shit until 1700
M8 40 Spaniards defeated thousands of Chinese and Japanese pirates in the XVI century... they had worse weapons, inefficint ships,they were much worse engenieers than Europeans and were pretty backwards at the time. Europe surprassed China way before 1700.

There may be other traits involved that they are lacking in, such as creativity or abstract thought

>>8603271
>Europe, outside of those areas connected with the middle east through the mediterranean, was a shithole for most of its history.
Holy fuck anon. Europeans reached the iron age pretty fast and even barbarians had written language which is more than most African tribes ever accomplished. Rome and Greece were super advanced civilizations and the high and mid middle ages europe was pretty fucking advanced to the point that they made most eastern technology obsolete

File: pTRU1-23951620_alternate1_dt.jpg (30KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x500px

>>8601096

Go the fuck back to /pol

Containment board.

>>8603120
>all that bullshit
lmao pajeet education

>>8603120
They also had no conception of mathematical proof

All of their mathematical results were of the form
do x
do y
do z
now you have your answer

>>8604225
>bottle rockets
FIFY

>>8601101
>muh culture
there's moar going on then just culture asshat.

>>8601107
It is when you are talking about how technologically successful a race is. It is a fairly substantial factor in that regard.

>>8601117
>Revised by whom. OP?
It is perfectly obvious to anyone that the asians failed to achieve the heights of Western society despite the fact that they most likely developed embrionic knowledge of math and engineering thousands of years earlier.

>>8605133
I think culture and system would play a larger role than IQ

>>8605169
>system
Lmao, what is that?

>>8601096
I'd fuck Murphy so hard ngl, she should not be that attractive for like a 10 yr old.

>>8604595
Japanese blast furnaces, tatara, existed since sixth century AD.

>>8604603
>pirates
Do did the Chinese dynasty.

>>8605398
its adult makeup dude, remove it and she looks like any 10 yr old.

>>8605473
based kikes sexualizing prime cunny

>>8605169
IQ is pretty shit as a measure of intelligence, and in any case, intelligence is obviously multidimensional.

IQ started out as a way to detect slow children while they could still be helped (look harder for undiagnosed illness, malnutrition, isolation, understimulation). For practical reasons, they tried to make it so one test could be used for both sexes.

The principle of designing the tests to make the mean scores of men and women come out equal was retained as IQ came to be used for all sorts of other purposes, but it's one that should clue you in right away to how bad IQ is.

How good would a "athletics quotient" be if one of the design constraints was that men and women should get equal average scores? It would be a trainwreck.

>>8603120
go to bed Pajeet

>>8603120
>suspension bridges
There were no real ones before they were invented in the West in the modern era. You're talking about rope bridges, which are such an obvious use of a rope that no reasonable person would call them an "invention". They're also obviously shitty.

>(sailing carts)
Wow, that was an important invention.

>the printing press 400 years before Guttenberg 'invented' it
...and why didn't they have an explosion of literacy and knowledge? They hadn't invented nearly what Gutenberg did, which was suitable for mass-producing books at a hundred times the rate of scribes. Printing toys existed in the West as well long before Gutenberg, but there are few references to them because they didn't matter.

>rockets that were developed enough to be used in battle
To be tried in battle. But nothing like the devastating cannons invented in the West.

In the East, many clever ideas were fiddled with, but they couldn't make dramatic creative leaps to well-developed, mature technology. They were limited to what could be reached by small, incremental steps, the same difference we see today.

>>8604357
Lrn2technology, historyfag

File: slave-prices-usa.jpg (32KB, 635x346px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 635x346px

>>8601096
I can see a number of factors

1. The geography of China meant it could be ruled as a single empire. This led to monoculture and the failure to allow divergent views. Inevitably this discouraged innovation.

2. For whatever reason the IQ range in China is lower than in Europe - the standard deviation is lower. This translates into fewer people with very high IQs - who drive scientific progress. It also translates into fewer people with IQ 110+. People with IQ < 110 are a drain on society and only those over 110 really contribute. So the number of people who are contributors to social progress is lower than in Europe.

3. Standards of cleanliness in Europe, particularly in England were lower historically. This encouraged disease and lowered population. In turn this allowed higher calorie intakes for the survivors. In contrast, people in China survived but ended up on lower calorie intakes.

This is a bit like the way calorie intakes in Africa now are lower than 10 years ago - in this case it is due to vaccination etc allowing people of more marginal health to survive.

>>8606564
>lower than 10 years ago
lower than *100* years ago

Re point 1 similar issues with the Roman Empire at times.

File: US_Europe_EAsia_averageIQ_scattergraph.png (104KB, 2000x2245px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 2000x2245px

>>8606564
If east asians are lower IQ than europe, then how come they have higher IQ than europe?

If east asians have lower standard of deviation than europe, then how come they have higher standard of deviation than europe?

Is /sci/ just /pol/ now?

>>8605981
IQ has been determined to be both accurate and precise by psychometricians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity
>How good would a "athletics quotient" be if one of the design constraints was that men and women should get equal average scores?
false equivalence.
>>8605169
IQ tests are only accurate if they're culture unbiased, which most of them are. Raven's progressive matrices is an IQ test that doesn't even involve language, an alien could take the test and it would be accurate.

>>8604616
Iron age europe was still shit and that's why archeologists divide iron age europe into pre-roman and post-roman influences, because of how shockingly different the cultures were. Until the romans spread civilized society to most of europe, it was a shithole and basically indistinguishable from ironworking african tribes that existed north of the sahara.

>>8605133
technological success is more resource based than intelligence based. ie: china, japan, korea.

>>8606564
>This encouraged disease and lowered population. In turn this allowed higher calorie intakes for the survivors.
Why would the survivors of an epidemic have higher caloric intake? If all your farmers die, you don't have anyone to tend the fields, you fucking rube. Specialization can only be achieved with significant surplus of food, which isn't helped by disease ravaging the peasant population, for what I think are obvious reasons.

>IQ range in China is lower than in Europe
gonna need a source on that one, pal

>The geography of China meant it could be ruled as a single empire. This led to monoculture and the failure to allow divergent views.
even though the entire history of china is revolution after revolution, including the bloodiest internal conflicts in human history.

>>8604610
Underrated post

File: 732192_bored.jpg (9KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x240px

>>8606024
>East invents things
>after several centuries West improves on them
>HUH, WHY ARE WE SO MUCH BETTER?

His post said at different periods different regions were superior. You're confirming everything he said but implying he's wrong.

Asians are smarter. The top 3 highest geniuses in the world are Asian. But Europeans are proficient in different areas.

>>8606784
In few more decades, that wont be relevant anymore. Even if the chinks are producing fake science papers at 90% rate, their 10% will simply outnumber the European scientific papers.

>>8601096
I heard asian population, while having a higher average IQ, have a lower variance than whites, meaning less retards, but also less geniuses.
I don't know how true this is.

Where are the proofs though

These "cultural accomplishments and racial achievements" threads are one of the worst thinly veiled /pol/ threads here

>>8602645
>you are now aware there is no difference between hard labor forced on you by the government and hard labor forced on you by circumstance

tick tock wagie

>>8606841
>you are now aware there is no difference between hard labor forced on you by the government and hard labor forced on you by circumstance
lesser evil and what not, life sucks dick but to keep a society running you need people to work, capitalism harnesses that in a semi-humane way.

>>8601101
>It's almost that intelligence isn't the objective measure of a population

Conservatism is relative, dipshit

File: math_by_race.jpg (244KB, 1126x774px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1126x774px

>>8606606
No.

But I doubt any of the pol-fags who realize Asians (and Ashkenazi jews, incidentally) having higher IQs than whites is quite damning to their ideology, will be able to really get useful responses from the rest of /pol/.

This contradiction is borne from faulty reading of the IQ data. Basically reading the IQ data with a political agenda and not really objectively. Trying to cut history into white and Asian periods or moving intelligence away from IQ and involving creativity is them struggling with the very natural contradiction that arises. Moving away from numbers and going into geography or history only dilutes the conversation.

There is a solution though.

>>8607497
no one complains about asians, you fucking idiot. your whole argument is a strawman about whites being a master race and everyone else being shit. too bad for you, that's not the argument being made.

>>8601096
because they got nuked

>>8607499
Oh, but very often when people are confronted with the IQ data they make the creativity argument in favor of whites, or asking what OP asked, completely and utterly undermining IQ data and genetics. You are wrong in thinking that there aren't a lot of confused people, who cling on.

Also I am perfectly aware of the new argument being made.
Currently we're at a 'self-determination' stage, ethno-states, ethnic homogeneity.
The issue is very simple, and why this new compromise-argument breaks down.

It does not value intelligence as an ultimate measure of merit. It will not survive impact with real life.

>>8601101

Most Asian countries are socialist.

Asians just don't innovate.

They can copy well, though.

>>8607497
>2013
>600
sheit

they must be over 9000 by now

>>8604565
This is why I fucking hate when people romanticize the Mongols. They were a bunch of worthless shitheads who only understood how to destroy, not how to create anything.

I've heard East Asian populations were heavily bottlenecked for a period and are thus very genetically similar (compared to other continental populations). This could yield poor genetic variance and thus a constrained set of traits or personalities, which would hurt creative and collaborative work (the basis of innovation). Just a thought.

We know they weren't entirely limited by the environment since they were still innovating stuff on their own before Europe took off.

File: diversity.jpg (74KB, 749x408px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 749x408px

>>8607521

>>8607527

Maybe Europe had the best balance of genetic diversity + raw intelligence? For one, there was a lot more ethnonationalist rivalry pushing innovation and expansion there.

>>8607512
that's because OP is a troll, and you're some insecure baited faggot.

>>8601096
Because the chinese had high quality chinaware and didn't drink any wine there wasn't a need for them to develop glass, so they didn't discover lenses, which limited them in terms of astronomy and biology. Here the invention of the micro/telescope ultimately resulted in the discovery of modern science, in combination with greek math.

The chinese came close to discovering the pythagorean theorem at least once, but they never followed through.

tl;dr ironically the chinese sophisitication was one thing that prevented them from developing further. Having said that, the flaws of greek religion for instance contributed to the development of critical thought and logic.

File: 1477471430755.png (50KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x342px

>>8607542
Then explain this troll>>8607539

How can you lie to yourself like this? Or is it confirmation bias that you literally can't see posts you don't like in this very thread?

Go ahead argue with him, tell him he's wrong and troll-tier. Tell him Asians are actually the smartest and whites aren't a master race.

Ideology is hell of a drug.

>>8607539
>Maybe
:^)

Whatever speculation makes you feel good, let that be the truth.

I'll stick to the facts, myself.

>>8601096

because intelligence isn't a fucking number.

OSTENSIBLY asians are "smarter", if you go on their almost certainly cheating test scores.

realistically, assuming that they're as smart as they say they are, they're extremely traditional and submissive. they're very group oriented.

File: Mongol_Empire_map.gif (162KB, 752x591px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 752x591px

>>8607519
> created the modern state of Mongolia

but any ways. I think they're cool because they're probably the greatest army of all time.
Smashing the two greatest empires of the time, the Khwarezmian Empire and eventually the Song Dynasty.

Pic related. The largest empire of all time

>>8607550

>Speculation

I'm going off of empirical evidence. Like the fact that a smaller population of people on the other side of the world dominated the entire planet while Asians were content to sit in their shitty little paddies and fight each other ad infinitum.

File: curvy.png (22KB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x256px

>>8607566
Colonial age is empirical evidence.
It is not, however empirical evidence that white kids are brighter than Asian kids. Empirical evidence to that effect are test scores, IQ scores all kinds of other scores, excluding verbal where there is equity. If you remove verbal the picture looks even worse for a white kid, statistically speaking.

Your historical argument can be chalked down to other factors than intelligence and is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. Also, as you know, depending on when in history you make it different races turn up superior - which suggests other things are involved. Yours is a counter-argument, but it simply doesn't hold, as I can ask you what were white people (aside from meds at certain times) doing all the time before the Colonial times? Faced with this inconvenient question your hypothesis blows up.

There is NO genetic evidence whites are superior to Asians, but there is to the contrary.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/
Secondary source is an "alt-right" website.

And, yes, it all fits the psychometric data.

>>8607586

I understand that they demonstrate higher IQ and standardized testing scoring ability. I am addressing why there is a gap in terms of Asian innovation relative to European innovation when Asians are demonstrably "smarter" (in the IQ and processing sense), as well as far more numerous, and yet have lagged in recent history and are still doing so. With numbers, as well as higher IQ, they should be blowing white Europeans away. So there must be other factors. I suggested lower genetic variance which may affect diversity of personality/character traits as well as lower ethnonationalistic rivalry which usually drives a higher impetus to innovate technology and expand outward (overseas).

You just keep shitting all over the place and posting IQ graphs over and over again like it means anything at this point in the discussion. This entire thread was started off the premise that, yes, Asians have higher IQs. Thank you for sharing faggot.

>>8607596
Asians are more innovative.
Who made anime? o right

>>8607612

I appreciate the valid push-back

File: hoax.jpg (44KB, 416x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 416x300px

>>8607596
>in recent history
The answer is recent world politics.
They were 'blowing Euros away', throughout history.

Your suggestion of lower genetic variance => fewer personality types has no basis in evidence. I think I already addressed this.

Studies have been conducted, people have measured IQ correlating with ALL kinds of intelligence(through g-factor), this includes being creative (and otherwise artful).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

For your argument to make sense you'd have to see Chinese constantly lagging behind Euros, which simply isn't the case throughout history. And no, you have no reason to only look at recent history.

I agree with you that "IQ/genetics isn't the only factor". There's geography, political situation (mongols for example), communism, discovery of the gun, having constant competition in terms of military(as was the case in Europe).

Those are all factors that influence.

I feel naked not posting a chart, so I'll post an AGW related picture. Not to make a point, but because it looks nice. I think it's Killimahnjaroh.

>>8601096
They isolated themselves. They were better than anyone until they did the whole isolation thing. then someone showed up in their harbor with a boat load of whip-ass and they revised their policies.

>>8607563
alexander the great's empire was the greatest empire and army of all time. they conquered every known empire in the old world, and they frequently won battles while they were outnumbered. the mongols almost always had matched strength or a numerical advantage. alexander the great also predated them by over 1500 years.

mongols were nothing more than thieving and murdering gypsy niggers.

>>8607623

>They were 'blowing Euros away', throughout history.

Were they really though? How did this start completely lose momentum and fall flat?

>Your suggestion of lower genetic variance => fewer personality types has no basis in evidence. I think I already addressed this.

All I've seen is a genetic variance map that still showed greater genetic diversity in Europe (especially population centers). You can also google studies that show lower genetic variance in East Asian populations.

I guess the argument is how much would environment or genetic diversity play a role in their different fates.

>>8607722
>How did this start completely lose momentum
Bad policies. Focusing on philosophy, literature and art instead of science. Isolation. Mongols.

You have to show the correlation between lower genetic variance and outcome. There is far more evidence to suggest IQ outweighs genetic variance in terms of importance.

Also you have to show why genetic diversity (ie different alleles or alleles frequencies) on genes unrelated to intelligence would imply for performance - this is the main portion of diversity out there. Good luck with that assignment - it's hard.

>>8602733
0/10 b8

>>8607618
>push-back
Intentionally misinterpreting, I see.

>>8601096
what ? why would asians be more intelligent on average ? is that from a IQ test chart or smthing ?
and yet I still don't see the link between what you call intelligence and technological development..
Do you think average american is smarter than average -insert country habitant here- ?

By intuition I'd say development rate of a country is mainly linked with the freedom that people have in this country, allowing trying weird stuffs that finally are discovered better than previous solutions.
And I would simply think about the middle agesand obscurantism for an example of why nations may or may not evolve.

>>8601101
This. They're basically Trumpfags.

>>8607999
>Trumpfags are smart
No they're not you retarded neo-Nazi.

>>8601096
They are smarter, but they are also less innovative. Generally because of anti-individualist 'for the greater good' mentalities in their cultures. Everyone is told to do their part, keep their head down and do the work they are assigned to do. Blame Confucius.

They were ahead of everyone else for most of human history.

As Kissinger put it, the Chinese have been dominate for 1800 of the past 2000 years. We (the US) have been dominate for the past 50.

Napoleon: "If I were an Englishman, I should esteem that the man who advised a war with China to be the greatest living enemy of my country. You would be beaten in the end, and perhaps a revolution in India would follow.

"China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will shake the world."

There is a historical topic on how the West overtook the East by the early 1800s. It's called the Great Divergence.

Europe was uniquely positioned to generate the greatest amount of competition due to his political and historical precedence. There was an impetus for European nations, whether Spain with
England, UK with Franace, Germany with the British, to overtake one another. Totally different story in Asia. China was accepted in the east for many thousand years as the most powerful state. Other kingdoms practiced tribute to China. There is a reason the Chinese did not have a foreign relations office; because they did not see other nations as equal to the Chinese. They were on the hierarchical top of the Asian realm.

Because of this massive dominance, China was inward. There was a saying that in China existed every material desire anyone could want and that there was no resaon to look outward. Hence the Chinese missed out on crucially, the discovery of the Americas even though they have larger and better constructed ocean going ships (Zheng He's fleet) than the Europeans about 150-200 years before Europe started the Age of Discovery.

That's not to take anything from the Europeans. The Europeans created the scientific method and created a system for which the natural world could be systematically studied. This had never been even done in Asia surprisingly, inspire of Asia's huge technological, scientific and mathematical lead over Europe.

>>8601096

The obvious answer: A human's phenotypes doesn't determine their intelligence

>>8608081
Being smart is a phenotype.

>>8608081
>A human's phenotypes doesn't determine their intelligence
Explain IQ

>>8608099
IQ is a phenotype unrelated to what your blood group is, which is also a phenotype. The only thing that determines IQ is your IQ genes (and environment up to 25%)

not him, obviously

>>8608072
Essentially this, but there were more reasons why europe overtook china in the industrial revolution.

>>8608072
To add, there is a good reason why you SHOULDN'T care about the Middle East, Russia, Black Lives Matter, Trump, Hillary etc.

The BIGGEST event of the 21st century is US-China relations. By far. This is the first time 200+ years that an Asian nation is once again the largest economy in the world. China is already largest economy in the world by PPP and soon to be by nominal. Everything else in the world are DISTRACTIONS. Trump or Hillary are at most 4-8 year affairs. BLM are domestic affairs. Chinese-American relations will be important for the entire century for every country in the world.

>>8601096
Smart does not equal success.

>>8608072
>mathematical lead
>no conception of mathematical proof
You're pathetic and clearly don't know shit about mathematics.

>>8607758

I can show a correlation, I think what we want is causality. I agree that IQ is one of the clearest indicators of general intelligence we can produce. Even given outside factors though, having so many people, so many presumably more intelligent people, and having a "lead" according to what we know historically (which I still think is debatable, Europe had some pretty crazy scientific progress starting with Greece), how did they fall behind as soon as Europe reached them in earnest?

They had gunpowder, but Europeans created and refined the first useful guns. Europe was at the fore of most of the scientific and mathematical discoveries and revelations from the 15th century onward, why would the enormity of China essentially wane and be subject to colonization like a complacent pup?

I know it's a hard one to prove. Social science like this seems to delve into a realm of subjectivity. At any rate, I think it is clear to see that Europe always felt a serious drive to explore and expand outward and it affected all of their innovation in order to navigate and master the ocean as well as conquer and subjugate those they came across.

they made appropriation into an art-form and needed white people to pollinate from.

>>8607586
I love how when IQ data is collected by race "whites" are lumped into one category yet we discern between different asian ethnic groups.

>Empirical evidence to that effect are test scores, IQ scores all kinds of other scores, excluding verbal where there is equity. If you remove verbal the picture looks even worse for a white kid, statistically speaking.

Reaction time evidence suggests that the average white in the Victorian era had an IQ 15 points (an entire standard deviation) than the average today. This would put them about 10 points higher than the Asian average. I guarantee if our culture and popular entertainment didn't push its degenerate, anti intellectual agenda on the poor, working class and uneducated our average IQ would be just as high. Asian families on average put a much higher emphasis on education and achievement than the average white. This has been especially true since the 1960s.

There are more white geniuses. It doesn't matter that they're more intelligent on average.

>>8608576

Not just ethnic groups, most of the time these IQ or test scores come purely out of specific urban centers like Beijing or Shanghai

>>8601096
They are? What nonsense.

>>8604603
>Spanish Navy versus Chinese and Japanese pirates
apples versus oranges
Lrn2comparison fgt pls

>>8605124
culture is dominant in society asshat

>>8605313
>hurr durr what is system
What is Wiki?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

>>8605313
Education system, academic system etc.

>>8606608
I'm not exactly arguing about the validity of them, I'm saying that even if a population has smarter people overall, their culture, the availability of education, the bias for that and many other factors would play a larger role in terms of scientific advancement
They are also obviously correlated with IQ, but not enough to make every assumption based on IQ

File: gasdsen chinese.jpg (1MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1280px

>>8601096
>If Asians are more intelligent on average than whites, how come up until the 20th century they were technologically underdeveloped?
Because their alphabet was batshit crazy and literacy was almost nonexistent, meaning that the sharing of ideas (which is even more important for technological development than intelligence) was exceedingly difficult.

There were other factors but I think this is the most significant.

>>8608889
Didn't they also kinda miss the invention of glass

I think that was kinda important

>>8607656
> alexander the great's empire was the greatest empire and army of all time.
The Mongols conquered all of Alexander's empire, and lasted longer than just Gengis Khan's death. Whereas Alexander's empire crumpled almost immediately after his (early) death.
Alexander also happened to inherit his greatest army from the greatest conquerer of his day Philip of Macedon, whereas Gengis Khan's tribe was wearing the rotting skins of field mice


>the mongols almost always had matched strength or a numerical advantage
but that's wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River
20k mongols to 80k Europeans
Superior generalship like Hannibal's won Mongol battles, not new tech like Alexander's

> mongols are murderers
> but alexander wasn't
Both committed great genocides and attrocities
Doesn't discount that their armies' greatness.

Where are you from btw? You seem to hate Mongols with a passion I haven't heard of outside of China

>>8608576
>culture
Are you an environmentalist suddenly? Whites had lower averages before degeneracy was a thing. Because IQ is 80% genetic. Go figure.
>reaction time in the Victorian era
Awesome.
How about current data we actually have.

Uncharted denial. Let it go. The funny looking East Asians are smarter on average, it's accepted there's tons of evidence even in this thread. Let it go already.

>>8608825
You're seriously defending that retard? How many times does it have to be posted that china's history has been one of absolutely unimaginable bloodshed from internal conflict?

>>8608842
>They are also obviously correlated with IQ, but not enough to make every assumption based on IQ
The reason for the divergence in european and chinese technology wasn't because of either, it was seemingly random fucking chance. Flooding and mongol invasions in the north of china radically shifted the population density away from the coal rich northern area of china into the southern area, which happens to coincide almost exactly with the decline of chinese industrialization, iron production, and general advancements in technology. It wasn't really until the collapse of the manchukuo when china really got the ball rolling on their industrialization.

>>8609012
>IQ is 80% genetic
t. your ass

>>8609087
not him but iq is about 75% heritable according to studies on identical twins raised in separate households.

>>8609081
>defense of retard versus denunciation of asshat
Lrn2difference asshat

>>8607513
>Asians just don't innovate.
what is Japan
what is South Korea

>>8609012
Look pal I never made the claim blacks weren't being held back from their true potential either; in fact I think it's clear they are more so than whites. I'm not sure how much IQ is tied to genetics, but I do believe it is quite malleable regardless. Uncharted denial? I provided you an explanation as to why I don't think the current paradigm (by Rushton and Bernstein) is painting the entire picture, and provide evidence to the contrary. Your only retort is "let it go".

>>8606606
Such a board on such a site would always attract people riding the pop sci wave thinking they are smart. There is a thread asking people for proof of a college degree in sciences and despite there being over a hundred posts, less than 10 have proved they have an actual background in STEM

>>8607527
So Africans are quite diverse. I guess it makes sense when you consider how large the continent is and how sparsely it was populated for most of human history. I doubt they interbred much

>>8606608
>IQ has been determined to be both accurate and precise by psychometricians
Gee the people who make IQ tests swear by them, couldn't have guessed.
While they are relatively precise, their accuracy is highly suspect outside of very specific clinical uses.
You'd understand that if you read sources instead of relying on a paragraph summary on goddman wikipedia.

>>8608139
>Tfw TPP would have ruined China economically but it's dead in the water
TPP would have gotten through if it weren't so restrictive on IP and medicine. It
s fucking ridiculous how a FTA to advance America's interests turned into some corporate welfare shit

>>8607586
Why are Hispanics a race? Aren't their either black, white, or native American?

>>8609140
This says it's .5
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
Also, this,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/, is slightly unrelated but a good read

File: 1481050120044.gif (5KB, 462x347px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 462x347px

>>8601096
Because they have no smart people, but their median is higher sometimes.

>>8606608
I think AP tests would be a great indicator of one's success in college. If America had a secondary education system like England or France where the last two years before college are taking an AP level equivalent, we would be able to assess who would perform well in specific majors in college.

>>8608139
If only Trump loved China as much as he loved Russia and Israel then

>>8606608
>Iron age europe was still shit and that's why archeologists divide iron age europe into pre-roman and post-roman influences, because of how shockingly different the cultures were. Until the romans spread civilized society to most of europe, it was a shithole and basically indistinguishable from ironworking african tribes that existed north of the sahara.
In Spain you have pretty impressive pre-Roman stuff. The Gauls were pretty good at metalurgy (better than Romans) which puts them above any meso-American civilization

>>8605440
40 to 1000 and undersupplied? Probably never. Japan didn't know how to work steel until Portuguese sailors told them and when Japanese used European weapons and tactics they BTFOed the Korean and Chinese armies.

>>8601096
IF asians were, in general, more intelligent, then yes, they should have enjoyed toilets and urinals but instead preferred to squat as animals, wherever they happen to be. The only thing they seem to have invented is explosive powder to kill people: hardly anything to boast about for intelligent people. Go to Aleppo and see how many people are grateful for the social contribution of bombs.
Asians are far from being, in general, more intelligent: They merely cheat more on exams and boast and brag more to try and impress people. And their government's bs more about the intelligence of their masses. Not a surprise. They may be able to regurgitate math and computers: but their emotional intelligence is lacking.
And they do seem far less emotionally-intelligent: their females sure did embrace the mindless valley girl routine, giggling and whining and being pretentious. But I imagine all countries have their 60-year-old retard valley girls who say "like" every fifth word, same as the retard guys in the shelters say "f" every fifth word. Their vocabulary is severely limited in all cases.
But then the masses in all countries are severely retarded. It's only because so many people are retards that it isn't top of the news every day. Lots of retards on here whose culmination of their life-long learning is that they can tell people to 'f' off: that's the limit of their contribution to society, every pathetic moment of their ignorant, worthless life.
And when I say Asians, I do not refer to people who consider themselves people of earth (who do not boast of their twisted leaders or pathetic empires/countries/dominions/cult-ures), I refer to the individuals who consider themselves Asians as if they were better merely because they're asian. Only severely inadequate, insecure people need to believe they're better by race when we could discriminate people by ignorance (the masses) and civilized, intelligent people (the few).

>>8601096
> how come up until the 20th century they were technologically underdeveloped?
They weren't, you fucking idiot, China was on the cutting edge for most of recorded history.

>>8609744
Most real statistics (that aren't made in paint) say otherwise

>>8609765
>baseless assumptions: the post

File: pisa standard deviation.png (297KB, 1536x1728px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1536x1728px

>>8609780

Looking at the large datasets about this kind of thing, if someone has a lower standard deviation in intelligence it's the hispanics. Germany's standard deviation is much more similar to Japan's than Denmark's.

>>8601096
>history is linear
>civilizations never regress

also
>Asians are more intelligent on average than whites
[citation needed]

>>8609814
>Connecticut
but why?

>>8609827

Because they're smarter than Florida.

>>8609814
That settles the "standard deviation excuse" for whites.

>>8603120
Even Africa was ahead of Europe pre-1500 due to Islam.

>>8609862
Maybe north africa.

>>8609827
Massachusetts is there too so I suspect that it's due to Harvard and Yale students in the area.

>>8609864
If you're insinuating that it's the light skinned part that was better then Europe that's a misconception due to it roughly correlating with the part north of the jungles. That's the real correlation with achievement in Africa, the blacks in the Sahel actually did ok under Islam.

>implying IQ = intelligence

>>8609755
>above mesoamericans


Lol What no cities, plumbing systems or monuments to speak pff

>>8609862
Nice reddit myth.

>>8609900
Oh and before you cite some 50 ad city slit you wrists I'm talking about pre Roman celts

File: 2a66d0486d27829baa810ead940e2ad5.jpg (14KB, 236x475px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x475px

>>8609728
yeah IQ is a good predictor of life success, the people who measure intelligence say it's good for measuring intelligence. obviously those people are liars though.

>>8609741
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates
0.8 may be a higher end estimate but it's still not unreasonable

>>8609392
even though what that 'asshat' was saying was entirely correct.

>>8609755
while I agree they have some examples of really amazing tribal art, the majority of it looks indistinguishable from african artifacts.

>>8609895
IQ is a measurement of general intelligence, yes.

>>8610874
African artifacts can be incredibly good

>>860109
Asian culture stifles inovation, especially the more traditional elements of it.

Culture matters, I don't need to tell you what happens to even intelligent people when trapped in an anti-intellectual milieu. It's a simmilar situation.

File: edo-iyoba-mask.jpg (55KB, 300x554px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 300x554px

>>8611252
I know, their tribal weapons in particular have always been really interesting to me. When I say 'looks indistinguishable from african tribal artifacts' it's not degrading the work of african tribal art, I'm saying that their subject matter is shockingly similar and the styles they use are essentially the same.

File: tooth_paste_ruined.jpg (80KB, 841x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 841x960px

>>8602989

Yeah... a simple ventilation problem prevented a Chinese industrial revolution... Yeah... keep believing that shit

>>8612297
that's just one of the reasons, I've posted a shitload in this thread.
See:
>>8609081

>>8601096
Because the west had capitalism and capitalism works miracles.

>>8601096
the median asian is slightly above the median nignog. the "iq tests" from asians countries are based from their top 10 tier schools, not a national average making their iq scores irrelevant for median statistical analysis

>>8610874
asshat wouldn't know the meaning of "culture"
even if his face were pushed into some

most asian countries lack some essential fabrication materials like crude oil or precious metals.

technology needs more than just brains to exist you know.

>>8612515

just like europe

>>8601096
Cause muh white man oppression

>>8609429
in execution. The bulk of their patents are mostly modifications on things which already exist, they never create new entire industries but they will out-perform in industries which already have the recipes and ingredients accessible.

Fun fact ;
Militarly superior on almost every point, Gengis Khan conquered almost all Asia.
Which leads to pax mongolica, then blocking east trade routes for europe, forced by so to do go west, discovering the new world in the process. We'll get back to that.
It also yields, times after, the ottoman empire, pressuring then the Habsburg in the south-east of europe. Those times were quiet for england, quiet enough to demilitarize and allow the growth of the (at this time) young agricultural capitalism, which eventually replaced the old feodal system.
Due to the free labor supply, and the almost infinte market of the new world, capitalism got a real start and began to rule the world. Allowing the technologic development you seem to care about.

Simply ; there're a lot of reason why Asians, and Khan particularly, are responsible for this tech development.
They're not underdevelopped. It's just that europe never hadn't got a Khan sooner.

>>8612944
looks like we have a retard here that never heard of alexander the great. he conquered every empire in the old world, and won many of the battles outnumbered. faggot khan just burned villages and at best fought under trained armies of equal numbers, and often outnumbered the enemy outright.

best part? alexander did this over 1500 years before khan.

>>8608928
the mongol """empire""" were a bunch of principalities being bled dry by mongols out of fear of retaliation. alexander's empire might have crumbled in the most explicit sense, but his empire permanently effected the leadership of the empires he conquered and which splintered off after his dead. it also doesn't change the fact that his empire existed over 1500 years before mongols.

so you were able to find one (1) battle, with uncited strength for the opposing army, where the mongols fought a bunch of uncoordinated armies, and after promising one of them safe passage after surrender they killed them? this is pretty much the story of every single battle where mongols won. and if mongol generalship was so great why did they get wrecked in their latter raids on europe when europeans started building better fortified cities and villages?

lastly, every mongol battle was an atrocity. if they won they slaughtered the opposing army. if they lost they burned any villages they saw while retreating. mongols are the worst thing to have happened to the euroasia.

>>8612959
Sadly, his empire didn't last. And that's the whole point.
I didn't discuss on if it was good or not, or any shit like that.
Just the fact that Khan left an empire/coalition/culture (pax mongolica) capable of blocking trades between europe and the east for a while.
Alexander did not.

If you want my opinion on the topic tho, alexander was a far more greater general than khan. I fully agree on that.
But alexandre had no sensible effect on the rise of capitalism, and therefore, industrial world.
If he somehow managed to have the land he conquered united for a few centuries, moving battle fronts to far east and/or mid africa, the story of the world would've been way different.

Also, when i analyze the link between trade routes, empire, capitalism, and such, how can u think i've never heard of alexander ? I didn't mention him cause he wasn't relevant to this point.

>>8612991
>the mongol """empire""" were a bunch of principalities being bled dry by mongols out of fear of retaliation.
And you think Alexander's empire wasn't? And the Assyrians before both of them. And the Romans
This is how empires hold power.
How many times did he have to invade Egypt?


> alexander's empire might have crumbled in the most explicit sense, but his empire permanently effected the leadership of the empires he conquered and which splintered off after his dead.
uhh yeah. so did the Khan's
> and if mongol generalship was so great why did they get wrecked in their latter raids on europe when europeans started building better fortified cities and villages?
When 3 kings in a row die in quick succession, you tend to not do so well.

The cities of the Chinese were better fortified wayyy before the Europeans. If the two successors of the Great Khan didn't die in quick succession, Europe probably woulda been crushed too.

Just look at the Hunnic empire before them.

You keep pointing out the attrocities as if matters on whether or not, the empire existed or the army wasn't great.
Yes, they slaughtered many villages. Yes, they used diplomacy to smash their enemies.

You also keep mentioning the age, like it matters on how great the army was.
The Assyrian empire started 2 millenia before alexander was born, and fell just a couple centuries before. So does that make it a greater empire?

Alexander gets wayyy too much credit nowadays. The Greeks of the day hated the Macedonian conquerers and his empire barely lasted a couple decades.
Plus, he inherited the greatest army from the greatest conquerer before him Phillip of Macedon.

>>8613080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

>The wooden, clay, and earth[4] defenses that made up the walls of most towns and forts (much like those of the Khwarazmian dynasty) fell easily to the Mongol siege engines.[5] Many Hungarian settlements didn't have any fortifications at all. One German chronicler observed that the Hungarians "had almost no city protected by walls or strong fortresses".[6] However, stone castles had significantly better fortunes; none of the few Hungarian stone castles fell, even those deep behind the Mongol lines. When the Mongols tried to use their siege engines on the stone walls of the Croatian Fortress of Klis, they did absolutely no damage, and were repelled with heavy casualties.[7] A similar thing happened when they attempted to capture the citadel of Esztergom, despite having overwhelming numerical superiority and 30 siege machines which they had just used to reduce the wooden towers of the city.[8]

you can suck all the mongol cock you want, but it won't make them anything other than completely pathetic. they put ww2 penal battalions to shame in terms of atrocities committed, and they are renown for going for low hanging fruit and getting wrecked when actually going against competent and properly prepared enemies.

you also keep mentioning philip of macedon and his army, what do you think genghis khan left behind?

>>8601096
Intelligence does not necessitate creativity

>>8613144
> China
> not competent and properly prepared
that's why mongols even popped up

> what do you think genghis khan left behind?
He left his army to Ögedei, who finished the invasion of the Jin dynasty, and died of alcoholism.


Again, what started this whole thread, was that the Mongols hated the Chinese far more than the Muslims and hated the Muslims far more than they hated the Europeans.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
> led by Nogai Khan
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogai_Khan#Rise_to_power_in_Golden_Horde_and_Europe
Soo the defacto ruler wasn't able to invade Europe nearly as hard as they were during the time of Temüjin, after a civil war.

>>8607563
the british empire was bigger you stupid nigger

>>8613200
Yeah. Mad props to those ships of the line.
I'm white btw. Just get excited by all this military history on /sci/.

While I'm posting
>>8612991
Just wanna mention Alexander's generals, Ptolemy and Antigones the One Eye (sp? lol). It's one thing to beat all the barbarians around you. Another thing entirely to fight armies that have the same level of tech as you.

>>8601096
Great scientific discussion you guys got going on here. I wonder, do brainlets come on this board to feel smart, or do you guys legitimately think you are knowledgeable on the sciences, mathematics, or the humanities?

>>8604565
>>8607519
I actually believe this might have occurred with the natives in Mesoamerica and the Andes. How else would such functional populations that were able to construct functional civilizations, be reduced to almost nigger-levels of cognitive function and poverty?

>>8602709
The US would have Asian tier IQ scores if not for all the beaners and dindus

>>8613453
Fuck you. I am a Latina having 98 IQ probably higher than you

File: Tower,_Great_Zimbabwe1.jpg (539KB, 697x982px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 697x982px

>>8613447
I feel like this is getting into excuses territory.

File: anime_smug.jpg (54KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x500px

i'd say the culture is so shit that if you want to innovate you'd have to go against your mom, your father, your girlfriend, your siblings, your great grandad from god know which age.
the god damned parents want to god damn interfere with every single activity the children do just to make sure that they don't "go the wrong way". that is just retarded.
i'm an asian and i hated that shit so much told my parents to stfu or i will disown them and just mind my own business.
just wait till the next generation when the culture change gradually. asians are has already bested whites in math right now. you guys are about to witness the great Asian take-over of the 21th century. screenshot this message and quote me back in 2070.

>>8608826
Wow, you're dumb.

>>8606608
>technological success is more resource based than intelligence based
Bullshit. If that were true Africa would be leading the world.

>>8614518
africans never had bronze and went immediately from stone tools to iron tools, they also never had beasts of burden that you could tame effectively. Really, africa is only rich in resources that are objectively useless to the advancement of a low level society.

>>8614527
They have copper and they have tin. Put them together and you get bronze. Smelting iron was discovered in the middle east apparently. None of this matters though because the idea that what is sitting in the ground determines whether a nation becomes proficient at technology is discredited with Africa being the prime example.

>>8613453
lmao
IQ tests of representative samples of white people in America(or white people anywhere) are lower than that of East Asians.

>>8607999
this is some tasty bait.

but trumpfags wanted something different. Instead of someone who promised world peace, a guy selling the next world war stepped up.

>>8614558
most of the copper resources in africa are south of the sahara.

>None of this matters though because the idea that what is sitting in the ground determines whether a nation becomes proficient at technology is discredited with Africa being the prime example.
gold, diamonds, and crude oil aren't exactly useful resources to tribal africans.

>>8601096
fuckin hell, im only on page 2 and ive already back to a 5 day old post. This board is dead af

>>8614666
Start some threads then pham.

I barely know shit about science but I start threads every other day to try and at least generate an interesting discussion.

>>8601096
Mongols wrecking their shit probably did not help.

>>8614596
you seem to be confused. hillary lost.

>>8601096
shitty government, extreme conservatism, lack of creativity despite high IQ, excessive materialism in society, a high degree of expected conformation in society, and more recently, an education system who's purpose is to create unthinking datamining robots compared to actually thinking critically.

t. chink

>>8613488
Whitey with sub-genius level IQ and I didn't even try. In-fact my IQ is so high I completely failed everything society wanted me to do because it's constructed for retards and I have to do everything on my own.

>>8601096
I wuv you young Murph ^.^

>>8601096
In the case of China the emperor often suppressed technological development, and even research into logic. Don't know the case for other east Asians, though.

How China got so bureaucratized that it could effectively suppress logic is another question.

>>8601096
Not even being a pedo, I wish my kid was as cute as her. Shes cute!

File: Beach-Benidorm-girl.jpg (494KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1200x800px

>>8601096
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282411443_Why_do_Northeast_Asians_win_so_few_Nobel_Prizes_1

File: 5adefebe44964abb8b0cd5a0bcbd0f4b.jpg (163KB, 609x1019px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 609x1019px

>>8619568
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282411443_Why_do_Northeast_Asians_win_so_few_Nobel_Prizes_1


>This study examined the contrast between the out-standing scholastic achievement and the relatively poor scientifi c performance of Northeast Asians by devising the index of curiosity, q . Europeans obtain an average score of 1.4 above Northeast Asians on this factor. The novel approach specifi ed three genetic underpin-nings of individualistic curiosity: DRD4 7-repeat, 5HT-TLPR long allele, and OPRM1. Then these gene frequen-cies were incorporated into the derivation of q indices of nations, as a measure of the tendency to be curious and independent-minded.
>Lastly, we found that the regres-sion analysis showed that not only IQ but also the q in-dex is important for a population to produce prominent scholars.


Curiosity is necesary for innovation.
There are many intelligent women, but they lack curiosity. They rarely innovate.

Asians don't have many interests or curiosity. Therefore they innovate much less.

>>8619604
I wonder if curiosity changes if Religion gets involved.

>>8601096
asians are smarter is a meme
IQ tests for asians are super biased, "national averages" are from their top 1% schools not a national average.

>>8619604
>drd4
>Despite early findings of an association between the DRD4 48bp VNTR and novelty seeking (a normal characteristic of exploratory and excitable people),[24][25] a 2008 meta-analysis compared 36 published studies of novelty seeking and the polymorphism and found no effect. The meta-analysis of 11 studies did find that another polymorphism in the gene, the -521C/T, showed an association with novelty seeking.[17] While human results are controversial, an increasing body of animal evidence has linked DRD4 variants with novelty seeking, e.g.,,,[26][27][28][29][30] and new evidence suggests that human encroachment may exert selection pressure in favor of DRD4 variants associated with novelty seeking.[31] Novelty-seeking behavior is probably mediated by several genes, and the variance attributable to DRD4 by itself is not particularly large.[citation needed]
a correlation, no mechanisms involved, doesn't show which way the association goes
further
https://www.omim.org/entry/126452?search=drd4&highlight=drd4

>5HTTPLR (long form)
nothing to do with curiosity
https://www.omim.org/entry/182138?search=5HTTLPR&highlight=5httlpr

>OPRM1
https://www.omim.org/entry/600018?search=oprm1&highlight=oprm1

ctrl f, curiosity, q-index

what this study basically does is, it states that asians win fewer nobel (lmao) prizes and then finds a few genes that have different frequencies in the asian and white populations

authors:

edward dutton
>I’m a Religious Studies and evolutionary psychology researcher based in Oulu in northern Finland. I also write for various magazines and newspapers.
lmao

jan te nijenhuis
>Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Programme group Work and Organizational Psychology
lmao

Kenya kura:
>economist

nice try

>>8619797
Post a few non-faked studies that reveal their real IQ.

Also what is their real IQ average?

>>8601096
Greeks, muslims chinese, and even native american civilizations and many other had golden ages of research that shaped science, techonological discoveries that were giant leaps in knowledge.

america makes a few contributions to science which are not even as big as the ones that the eruopeans did
which are not even as big as the others i mentioned earlier

and suddenly they go : GET ON MY LEVEL PRIMITIVES WHY IS EVERYONE ELSE SO DUMB ALL OF THE TIME

its no wonder that this beliefe is commonly portrayed by uncivilized americans, real scientist know the humble place where tehy stand

>>8619901
don't you get it white people (that includes me, the loser from pol) made inventions

i need to take credit for that, im also white, but im not as smart
lmao

>>8619901
>muslims
And here I thought they bled the civilizations dry that they conquered.

Mongols did not help.

>>8619940
>And here I thought they bled the civilizations dry that they conquered
quick education lesson
anyone in first grade of my country know that, but its reasonable that a correctly educated country's first grade is equivalent to an american... i dunno third year in college?

make a quick google search and type "science" and "arabs"

>>8619995
>The Islamic Golden Age refers to a period in the history of Islam, [...]. This period is traditionally said to have ended with the collapse of the Abbasid caliphate due to Mongol invasions and the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 AD.

Why so lazy?
>There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, but only two scientists from Muslim countries have won Nobel Prizes in science (one for physics in 1979, the other for chemistry in 1999). Forty-six Muslim countries combined contribute just 1 percent of the world’s scientific literature; Spain and India each contribute more of the world’s scientific literature than those countries taken together. In fact, although Spain is hardly an intellectual superpower, it translates more books in a single year than the entire Arab world has in the past thousand years.

>>8619995
I also found this tidbit:
>A preliminary caution must be noted about both parts of the term “Arabic science.” This is, first, because the scientists discussed here were not all Arab Muslims. Indeed, most of the greatest thinkers of the era were not ethnically Arab. This is not surprising considering that, for several centuries throughout the Middle East, Muslims were a minority (a trend that only began to change at the end of the tenth century). The second caution about “Arabic science” is that it was not science as we are familiar with it today.

Bleeding dry sounds plausible to me. They ran just on sheer inertia.

>>8619995
Hmm.
>To understand this anti-rationalist movement, we once again turn our gaze back to the time of the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. Al-Mamun picked up the pro-science torch lit by the second caliph, al-Mansur, and ran with it. He responded to a crisis of legitimacy by attempting to undermine traditionalist religious scholars while actively sponsoring a doctrine called Mu’tazilism that was deeply influenced by Greek rationalism, particularly Aristotelianism. To this end, he imposed an inquisition, under which those who refused to profess their allegiance to Mu’tazilism were punished by flogging, imprisonment, or beheading. But the caliphs who followed al-Mamun upheld the doctrine with less fervor, and within a few decades, adherence to it became a punishable offense. The backlash against Mu’tazilism was tremendously successful: by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

Then the Mongols came.

File: alhazen.jpg (166KB, 736x894px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 736x894px

>>8620034
>>8620026
>>8620023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Muslim_scientists_and_scholars

pic rel, a very impressive person

>>8620023
a cute iranian just won the field's medal a couple years ago

>>8620045
I never said that they were incapable of Science.

But a anti-rationalist movement, mongol invasions, empire fragmentation, the black death, the crusades, the rise of colonialism and the ottoman empire takeover are all factors that probably had their own impact.

Not to speak of violent empire expansion and the destruction of libraries (e.g. the Library of Alexandria).

(Though any movement against rationality probably hurt the most.)

>>8620043
My thesis is that that machinery ran out of steam due to various (some self-inflicted) factors.

>>8614874
Honestly, don't know if you're trolling

>>8601096

If you would approach questions like that with the scientific method, you wouldn't have to ask.

First you need to find out what exactly intelligence is. After you have done that, you will realize that it is just one of the requirements for inventions and at that in a varying quantity. At this point you would have already realized how misleading your question is. Maybe you would have done some further research as to what other factors influence the ability to make inventions and at the latest at that point you would have given up on even asking that question.

>>8614582
>are lower than that of east asians in misrepresentative areas

>>8622288
Wrong