I've just finish it and I literally haven't read anything I didn't know already.
Why is this book controversial again?
>everything is like, geography man
>why would you like, build roads and wheels, shits hard bro
it doesn't buy into /pol/'s bar room racial theories and thus it's "LITERALLY SJEW COMMIE PROPAGANDA"
>niggers aren't scientifically retarded
whew deny climate change for me next big boy
It's also controversial among SJWs.
I remember there was this stereotypical non-binary person on Crash Course that criticized it and later Green had to apologize for the video or something.
It was a year ago I think.
>multiple factors in an environment might lead to different development
niggers are so stupid!
It's a pop history book and despite what negative connotations that phrase might have I'm not criticizing it for that. For people who study history quite often Diamond's work doesn't really offer anything new, but for the everyday person it provides a more in-depth explanation for events that they may have only learned about for 10 minutes on one day of their 50 minute high school history class.
Niggers are scientifically inferior, and that book doesn't deny it
It merely explains that the root of their inferiority is environment
Then with evolution, this inferiority was written within their DNA, which is why bringing them to Europe won't make them any clever (at least not until a thousands years)
Here's the original video, someone mirrored it.
That doesn't actually explain why it would be controversial at all. The only thing you accomplished by stating it's accessible is making yourself look like a pretentious faggot.
Because it suggests anything other than the white man being literal gods descended from the heavens to walk amongst the lesser races in majesty, therefore this site throws a shitfit.
It's overly simplistic, Diamond uses terrible scholarship (yeah, it's a popsci book, but that's not an excuse for how bad of a job he does), and it's painfully obvious that Diamond is talking about subjects that are completely out of his depth. Seriously, ideological issues aside, it's an terrible book that's hated by people in the relevant fields for a reason, and it's easy enough to do a five second google and figure out why.
It doesnt conform to Nu Facts where history is mostly based on how you feel today.
Did you actually read it?
Its decent starter for the uneducated. Sorta like giving basic science lesson to a child. But once you graduate basic class, you have to give up on that knowledge as you advance further down.
Claiming those basic knowledge as an adult makes you childish.
This. It's also important to note that this site is hardly even a minority within a minority. It seems controversial here because this is where people of like mind congregate but outside of this site geographic features influencing cultural development is hardly controversial and is fucking babby tier.
It advocates for a type of hard determinism, but because it doesn't put the onus on culture or race it upsets people that advocate extreme forms of social engineering.
I know that is bait but
>Author is not a historian
>claims every facet of human diversity rests on a single variable
>arguments range from weak to just plain wrong
>author admits to writing the book explicitly to prove a certain viewpoint wrong, showing bias
>unironically argues against academic consensus based on "common sense" when he only has an entry-level knowledge of events
>so determined to be anti-racist even academia finds it too much
>America didn't have domesticable animals
[citation needed]
Claims there's no innate differences in intelligence or behavior between population groups which is absurd on its face.
Of course, that's why Amerindians developed at a higher rate compared to europeans.
>the wheel wouldn't be useful in africa
stop mixing your meds, jared
Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond
>yeah bro there’s no beasts of burden in africa Oxen and zebras totally can’t be tamed
That’s a fair summary
>but muh difference in tamed and domesticated!
>but muh zebras are too aggressive!
I don't get why they say this. Wild horses were just as aggressive if not more so
You don't understand. They are as dangerous as bears, try to domesticate one and we will see how far it gets you.
The author is a Jew and has an interest in creating anti-white propaganda. In other words that book.
More importantly everything you think you know is propaganda and subversion, which is worse than knowing nothing.
Again, horses back then were just as aggressive, and breeds of cows came from aurochs which are giant fucking bulls
zebra is scary
domestication never works
It's controversial because it threatens the beliefs of white supremacists, that Africans had more primitive societies because of a genetic inferiority.
Outside of stormnigger circles and the sites that tolerate them (like this one), most people don't find the book "controversial". Rather the prevailing opinion is that it has some interesting and logical theories and some less logically consistent theories, with an anthropology perspective not being enough to adequately explain some things.
Read the book
Besides bad arguments, it's typically used as a way to say white privilege goes way way back.
It's a fact that most black African populations have extremely low IQ, some even bellow the 70 threshold of mental retardation.
It's also a fact that a very large component of IQ is genetic
Now put two and two together.
>iq
Not science.
It's pop history written in a way that non-academics think it's actually rigorous academia. It's actually far better than your typical pop history book, which is probably why it triggers people so much. It falls in the uncanny valley between academic and pop.
Did anyone else find the book insufferably boring?
>durr hurr race doesnt affect ability
>durr hurr race doenst affect IQ
im no stormfag but the author is literally lambasted because he tries his hardest to be anti-racist therefore forgoing some academic integrity. its quite sad really.
IQ is a meme anyway, the Emotional Intellect is what matters.
If we're talking about the native americans, it was mainly a lack of beasts of burden that they never built carts
>niggers were nomadic and were unable to cultivate the land and settle down.
>confused as to why they didnt create empires as vast as europeans.
why is this even still a debate?
The verifiable fact that we’ve been to the Moon, have an international space station in orbit, have a fucking car hurtling through deep space, and that the earth is fucking round are controversial topics in suburban america, why the fuck wouldn’t this be?
>To have 'emotional intelligence,' you have to have two pre-requisites: Intelligence and empathy.
Guess who's way behind in both categories?
>have a fucking car hurtling through deep space
>a car
You're going to have to explain this to me. First I've heard of it.
Yet iq is not science, user. Iq is pseudoscience.
yeah psychology is as well, youre right. so is philosophy and metaphysics. theyre basically all quackery anyhow. lets just throw them out
Musk launched a Tesla to Mars last week
space.com
It’s just an article about it. Did you not see the SpaceX launch?
The only thing i know for sure is that iq is not science. Iq is pseudoscience.
why do we find that people who have low-end, repetitive occupations have low IQ scores?
and people who are in jobs which require more critical thinking and intelligence have verifiable higher IQs?
is this just a simple case of correlation and not causation? hmmm, must be.
Damn, that's some crazy shit. Maybe I should follow this SpaceX stuff.
>Again, horses back then were just as aggressive, and breeds of cows came from aurochs which are giant fucking bulls
Wild horses aren't nearly as dangerous or unpredictable as zebras.
m.youtube.com
Here you go user. Coolest thing I’ve seen in 2018 so far
>is it just
You tell me. iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.
>what is a llama
yeah IQ has absolutely no way of indicating, at the LEAST, ability.
youre telling me someone who holds down a factory job is just as "smart", as ambiguous as that term is, as a physician or lawyer?
that seems crazy to me.
And iq is still not science. Therefore iq is pseudoscience.
Have you ridden a llama or used a cart while using the andean road?
thats literally just semantics.
it in no way discredits its findings at all.
there is a clear documented link between ability and IQ no matter how you want to dress it.
A kind of mountain goat native to South America?
>scientific rigorousness=semantics
Haha
>no way link
>correlation=causation
Aaaaand iq is still not science. Thus, iq is pseudoscience.
Low IQ = low ability
High IQ = high ability
>theres just NO SCIENTIFIC way of telling that despite the thousands of data points collected!!!
Yeah... And cybernetics is pseudo-science too... And probably also genetics... Take your pills, dad.
Why call it pseudoscience unless you’re just doing this for (you)s?
Why not an “unproven/incorrect theory”?
Its ignores the fact autist in every race are the only reason anything is invented.
>correlations=causation
lol
Seeiq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.
As it is not science, yet iq supporters claim it is, which it isn't, then iq is pseudoscience.
intelligence is your ability to solve intellectual problems i.e. the same one which IQ test tests
kekmate, retard
Forget IQ test blacks are dumber than eurasians in general.
people with jobs requiring high levels of critical thinking have higher IQs, this is proven.
people with jobs that dont require critical thinking have lower IQs, this is also proven.
>hmm yeah but theres like no repeatable studies to be done
>its like correlation bro, it doesnt mean anything.
>IQ can't answer these arbitrary questions I decided on
>therefor IQ is ascientific despite being rigorously scientifically tested for decades
Lmao
Pseudoscience implies it is in no way shape or form similar or like science, ie farcical, fake, not-real
Things that are measurable and have clear rules and strings of logic and have been tested in practice with the Scientific Method are by definition NOT pseudoscience.
That also does NOT mean they are correct theories. But if you want to play smart do try to actually be smart.
> critical thinking
Now, you are fully memeing on.
move along everybody, this nigger is literally fishing for (you)s.
that or hes THAT butthurt that his fellow spear chuckers are quantifiably inferior to da white man
>hurr durr medicine requires the same amount of fluid intelligence and thinking skills as an assembly line job.
this is how you sound.
Llama are terrible beasts of burden
iq claims to measure intelligence, yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.
>fundamental description of what iq claims to measure=arbitrary
Brainlet detected.
>"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]"
There you go, pseudoscience lover.
Nice rebuttal, brainlet.
Iq is still not science, therefore iq is pseudoscience.
> thinking skills
IQ qualifies intelligence, not thinking skills.
this isn't RPG with skill checks user
grow up
>medicine
Is literally an assembly line/store clerk job you literal monkey.
Chemists that make drugs are just idiots with a diploma that follow rules any idiot with a diploma could
Unless you mean actual doctors, because there’s a reason over half of the medical industry is pharmacist and chemists
> scales claim to measure mass, yet scales cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>>doesn't know what is mass
>>doesn't define gravitational influences
>>doesn't explain existence of space dimensions
Scales are pseudoscience.
Except mass concept is defined by the most conceivable way by science.
iq claims to measure intelligence, yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.
> An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence.
>Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past.[2]
>Capacity to reason and solve novel problems is tantamount to "thinking".
physicians who solve problems using their thinking skills and itelligence = = assembly line worker who assembles the same parts.
> mass concept is defined by the most conceivable way
And yet... You can't provide a non-circular definition of mass.
E/c^2 = mass
I can claim that my test measures everything at once from the purity of soul to the strength of spirit, but claims mean nothing. In practice, this is just your ability to solve crosswords, wow so useful in real life.
>circular definition
I advise you to not talk about physics if you don't know about what you are talking about. lol
iq is still not science, therefore iq is pseudoscience.
This is an equation.
I asked for a definition.
It's a mathematical definition, more solid than anything you have
Ignoring that llama are poor beasts of burden, there's the fact that they are also in a region where carts are worthless.
Do you really think if you gave some european peasant in 800 AD an IQ test that they would do well? Unless China has secretly been practicing eugenics to make everyone smarter how does a "race realist" explain the steady growth in IQ China has experienced?
Race doesn't affect IQ of the individual though. It is correlated the distribution of individuals of various IQs throughout a numerous population.
Someone doesn't have 120 IQ because they're black, or because they're white. Assuming IQ is inherited, it has nothing to do with whether your parents were black or white. It had to do with whether or not they had high IQs.
The IQ distribution is descriptive, not determinant.
800 AD China did had something like iq tests
IQ is part of Mental Diagnostics, which is Science of Psychology.
I don't know how statistics works, the post.
>Science of Psychology
Psychology is absolutely not a science
This is from the other post. This problem won't go away, boy.
iq claims to measure intelligence, yet iq cannot even answer the most fundamental questions:
>doesn't know what is intelligence
>doesn't define intelligence influences
>doesn't explain intelligence physical mechanism
Iq is pseudoscience.
Does medicine know what's pain?
yeah, this completely arbitrary test designed to assess intelligence shows a strong correlation between IQ and ability. But because it does not follow the scientific method we should devalue its findings.
>assembly line worker has the same ability as a physician.
The only thing I know is that iq is still not science. Therefore iq is pseudoscience.
If that's all you know, would be great to learn more instead of trying to teach others