Is this a book for retards and leftists, Veeky Forums...

It's a bit oversimplified, but he's not wrong.

Because it makes /pol/ butthurt.

Nigger did you read the OP? Some fuckin homo sapien tribe couldn't domesticate shit when they had a wealth of animals, yet Neanderthals in butt freezing tempratures could domesticate anything from sheep to cattle to wild dog.

I want Veeky Forums to leave

It's almost never that simple or as vague. Natural selection might change the to suit a way of life but not fast enough to work on a culture that has existed for less than 10k years.

>Veeky Forums
Nah, i'm Veeky Forums raging at the idiots blaming everything on biology without any evidence.

Are you unironically trying to imply that evolution didnt affect humans?
We already have the proof it did by looking at heavily different physical traits from a race to another
No reason to believe it didnt affect cognitive capacities as well

There's no 'perceived' goal of evolution, moron.
Organisms are sexually and or naturally selected for traits that benefit survival. They don't just "develop" new behaviors and whatever happens sticks.

/pol/ pseudo-science doesn't belong here either, bud.

>Are you unironically trying to imply that evolution didnt affect humans?
No, just not in the simple way you explained.
>No reason to believe it didnt affect cognitive capacities as well
There is no scientific evidence to support it did in any meaningful way.

It's painful to be Veeky Forums on Veeky Forums sometimes.

Not really. Just because he points out some good things about those societies doesn't suggest that he views them on as equal footing with Europeans. Especially consider the widespread criticism that book got for making generalizations, sensationalizing certain cultures, and making them seem more "primitive" and violent than they actually are. It basically has the same outlook as his other books, expect he goes a little further out of his way to portray some of the downsides of civilization. The only real difference is that he argues that civilization isn't necessarily "better" than other systems.

See: In very basic terms, he's using a framework that has been outdated since the 1960s in social science. It makes his outlook very simplistic, and flawed in some pretty key ways, which shows if you read his stuff and have any kind of knowledge of modern anthropology.

Lamarck pls go.

>There is no scientific evidence to support it did in any meaningful way.

Aside from, you know, looking at facts (African history, African current situation, Behavior of Africans in the Western world...)

>IQ averages
>Not evidence

Please leave

I did not need some Lamarck. Not today. Pls don't.

>IQ
>Solely genetic

>A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98."

random polling is not scientific evidence.

>All those philosophy fags arguing that thousand year old philosophers are right even when modern science proves them wrong
How can people be this stupid?

You don't know what science is do you?

>Large sample size
>not evidence

Now you're trolling

Blocked.

>France '99

Most poor people living in France were niggers.

BTFO
T
F
O

IQ averages change every generation.
Even if we used IQ as evidence it wouldn't link to anything genetic.

You're not very bright are you?

Fuck off phil fish. You haven't posted proof of shit and it's obvious you know nothing of science.

>resulting to ad hominem

Truly, the sign of a defeated man.

IQ is based on far more than just genes stupid.

They're evolving though contact with superior white men

>Show why you are wrong
>B-But you called me a name!

I suspect a lot of the people always denying African inferiority in these threads are black

You have no argument, and you never showed me why I was wrong.

You leftists are delusional. No wonder there has never been a successful leftist society.

I suspect the people who post this are butthurt because they can't find real evidence to support their storm faggotry.
I guess jews are the best race since they have the highest IQ!

African countries and culture are shit tier but insisting that dark skin is a mark of inferior intelligence is /pol/ tier stupidity

see The claim was that it was genetic and IQ was evidence. Multiple people showed that IQ isn't just based on genes.
But if you want to spam dank memes maybe you should go back to /pol/.

What's with /pol/fags instantly going full ad hominem and crying as soon as they get proven wrong?

google.com/search?q=riding zebras&biw=1920&bih=945&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwitHZ7K3MAhXClYMKHQp0BJEQ_AUIBygC

This is a google search with 100s of images of people doing just such. Now, think about this, Europeans actually domesticated animals into better beasts of burden, and into an industry.

They didn't just ride a zebra, like it's obviously possible to train it to do. They literally changed the ancestor of the horse into wealthy child's gifts and war steeds.

>we wuz kingz n' sheet

/pol/ fags are stupid. /pol/fags must all have stupid genes

Reducing the difference between Africans and Europeans to "dark skin" is leftard tier though
There are many more physical differences (and probably a lot of cognitive ones too)

Look at these big lipped apes. I can feel their nostrils flaring from here because no one is buying their circular arguments.

It's also funny how whites are able to grow crops on the supposedly infertile African lands

>Circular arguments
I would say the same for you tards but it's literally
>Niggers are inferior!
>Really, show genetic proof?
>ASKING FOR A SOURCE IS LEFTIST

>Multiple people showed that IQ isn't just based on genes
No one showed this you dumbfuck. Try living in the real world for a second.

>and probably a lot of cognitive ones too
cite or you're full of shit
The human genome has been mapped. Yet your genetic superiority is nowhere to be found

>Try living in the real world
study.com/academy/lesson/iq-and-environment-and-genetic-influences.html
Educate yourself nigger.

Gonna post anything to back up your claim there champ?

Even the guy who discovered DNA agrees.
foxnews.com/story/2007/10/18/dna-discoverer-blacks-less-intelligent-than-whites.html

And if you were really from sci instead of some fag brony jacking off to your 2d waifu you would know a thing or two about cranium sizes, faggot/

>Know a thing or two about cranium size
>It has been known for years that Brain size in humans does not equal intelligence
Kek, don't pretend you are Veeky Forums. Also
>Look, someone believes this! That makes it true!
That's not how science works retard.

>post a video
>because has no argument

Another proof of a retarded unga bunga. Can't think for himself so he points to a video.

this is not how evolution works at all.

In fact, if man developed in Africa, which is 30.3 million km2 of land mass, than all he would have to do to survive climate change is migrate around Africa, to stay roughly in a tolerable biome with similar food sources that also migrate. Africa as a total continent has not changed as much as the "environmental factors" argument wishes to claim. It only shifts biomes around on such a massive land mass.

Now, take into consideration the Kane Toad, and its infiltration into Australia, and the 'pioneer effect' - where by, creatures colonizing new biomes with new challenges and new food sources adapt to become larger and more intelligent. intelligence is related to an ability to find patterns in the behavior of the food source.

Blacks in Africa are not that large, and one tribe is renound for being as tall as the dutch. Blacks in the US have been breed for a burdonous environment, just long enough, to give some a muscularity and testosterone edge their African ancestral populations dont have in the same frequency of gene expression.

African inferiority is caused by tribalism, maoa genes caused by systemic historical ethnic conflicts, and so much internationally sponsored and enforced coercion of mineral rights and policy that stability is never a continental priority. You say 'africa', so you must be referring to all of it, and not the stable nations that have worked things out and become less tribal and more nationalistic.

He discovered DNA, so I think he know a thing or two more about it than you with your education from Reddit University.

Even I know that phrenology was laughed out of science just like how neo-Darwinists laughed out Lamarckism even though Darwin suggested it as a SUBPROCESS for evolution.

Central Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has always been highly productive due to the lack of tsetse flies, hence the relatively high social complexity in precolonial times compared to surrounding regions. Try again.

Leftists hate this book because it doesn't blame white people for all the world's problems. The only real critique of it is that it is deterministic. Hell, this book is on the State Department's readings list.

>D-Don't post a source to prove your point

>Even I know that
Yeah that means shit coming from a retard.

>Appeal to authority
Well then I can just find people who are more educated that disagree.
Stormkids really don't know the basics of argument.

>I NEED A SOURCE
>for an argument that doesn't even reference anything

Top autism.

James Watson is 16% black
>Blacks in Africa are not that large
Not surprising they have shitloads of parasites, infestious diseases, malnutrition, and basically nonexistent medical care

You know, if you actually took the time to read the article instead of just the title, there's an argument from him in there.

The /pol/tard is literally telling people not to back up their arguments at this point, what did you expect?

It explains how IQ can be effected by environment and genetics. How is that not related stupid?

What I said doesn't reference anything. My God, put down the pipe for a second.

And it has no scientific backing.

Why do all Pol claims boil down to a simple logic check followed by 'real world sense'. It's almost as if they are educated on every subject they talk about via shirt text on memes. Literally the new furries/bronies. Doesn't surprise me that pol types are usually into furry shit at all.

We're all retards here.

What's your point?

>Blacks are inferior!
>ok what is your source?
>I DON'T NEED A SOURCE

So what the fuck is your point? That blacks were never able to succeed because of whitey, then? What was it if it wasn't for their intelligence?

Why would anyone read that shit when you can read this beauty

I was talking about the video you posted, shit for brains.

Succeed at what?

You fucking really are retarded. Succeed at building a civilization that had architecture, art, sculptures that could stand the test of time like the Greeks and Romans.

>in b4 Egyptians

We're talking about sub-sahran Africa here. Particularly the Bantu

There are many different things that could be it.
Culture, economy, the fact that a huge amount of blacks are raised by a single mother.

Here's a response to it from Bill Gates

gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Nations-Fail

Jews couldn't do any of that but they have the highest IQs of any racial group.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CIVILIZATIONS NOT INDIVIDUALS

Leftists are the biggest retards on the planet.

Also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

>Jews never invented anything or created any art or sculptures that helped change humanity.

lel look at this fag.

>Culture has nothing to do with civilizations
Holy shit, you are retarded. Dank reddit meme though.

Blacks did too. See Snoop dogg

How come /pol/ brings out the leftist ad hominem whenever they are losing?

>Culture
>Economy
>Resources
>Children raised
>has nothing to do with civilizations

Its only an ad hominem if the insult is used in place of an argument instead of to flavor it, you peter puffer.

Those have to come first before you can have a civilization and blacks never had any of that. Now why?

Is it whitey, or is it because you niggers are dumb as fuck?

But you don't have an argument.

You are trying to pretend culture has nothing to do with civilization.

No one said blacks didn't have a culture stupid.

So jews and native americans are also dumber? Oh wait, they aren't.
Have you ever read guns germs and butter? It actually goes into detail how it's probably based on resources and farming land.

BLacks were never able to capitalize on any of that, tyrone. Not because of whitey, but because of nigger inferiority, obviously.

Now put the crack pipe down and tell shanquitisha that bitch time to whore herself out for more of dat crack rock.

>Still no proof posted
Amazing.
>They weren't able to capitalize on any of that
Any of what user?

Calm down there buddy, are you too autistic to see the value of clarifying what the argument is when someone uses vague terms like "they didn't succeed!"

What do you believe makes roman and Greek art successful? That it is remembered? That it is emulated? The ability to exist for long periods of time?

Jews have a civilization. Do you know what the country of Israel is and the Land of Juda is? Do you know what a diaspora is you fucking moron?

>doesn't know what it takes to succeed

Yup, typical leftist. No wonder you all fail at life.