Why were white people so wildly successful? How come other groups didn't develop like they did?

At some point Europeans discovered the scientific method which led to a revolution and technology, as well as in ideas (i.e. it prompted us to discover new lands and expand).
/thread

>propaganda

So this is how stormfags think

This

/thread

geography

>if it doesnt reinforce my beliefs it must be le ebul librul propaganda

Ebin simply ebin

...

>t axioms

>image.jpg

Church bell making technology made making better cannons possible

Jared Diamond literally admitted the only reason he wrote the book was for an agenda.

Not even a stormfag, there's a reason his book is pretty disliked here.

>actually defending GG&S, a book not even liked by leddit, the most liberal place on the internet

Source?

The fact that European countries had access to better, more easily tameable livestock than other places (I.E the Americas and large parts of Africa). This allowed for more food with less effort than large scale crop farming like in Asia. It also helped that Europe was, in a way, isolated from many other large empires with the Middle East taking the brunt of the Mongol Invasion.

TL;DR, Europe kept lucking out which led to better conditions for western empires to form.

I'm gonna repeat this Diamond's argument is not followed by any notable historian. You are still free to follow his ideas but you have to keep in mind that you're literally the antivaxxers of the history community.

Genetics.
(((guns germs and steel)))

He said he wrote it to disprove racism instead of actually explaining why Europe had advantages over the rest of the world.

It's pretty biased and in his attempt to "disprove racism" he actually gets a lot of shit wrong that a neutral author wouldn't have.

>muh genetics

Have you read guns, germs and steel? Here, i'll give you a summary from someone who has read the book:

"Diamond stresses that he realizes that efforts to compare societies have frequently been used by racists or nationalists to belittle groups or justify mistreatment of them. He argues that his analysis is in fact anti-racism at work because it shows that the white people who enjoy the comforts of modern life are ultimately luckier than, not more deserving than, people in impoverished nations. (Diamond has not entered the online debates about his work and through a UCLA spokeswoman declined to comment for this article.)" Diamond began writing this book with an agenda, he wanted to "disprove" something. In the end his book isn't really good and most historians, anthropologists and political scientists disagree with it.

So what do we call an agenda piece that isn't true in any way?

I have no idea who that is or what is wrong with what I said.

Reminder that if you want to shout genetics you have to explain which genes are we talking about, what effect they have and how are they distributed in human populations.

Right now europe is on top.

Before us it was the romans.

Before them is was Egypt.

After Europe it will be asia.

After Asia who knows.

Its just how history rolls, empires rise and fall.

No one empire is better than the others, its just their turn to rule.

Now if everyone finally got their heads out of their asses and could start working together we might get somewhere, but everyone is still livong in tribes.

>No one empire is better than the others

This. The count down has begun

You're essentially parroting Diamond, who is wrong. As are you. Almost all of your statements were wrong and are not to be taken seriously as reasons for why Europe became successful while for example Asia (that had better resources than the west) didn't.

If they were so great then why did they fall?

>dude ur wrong because I said so lol

Nice non argument, pal.

Epic meme pic. Deny evolution all you want.

Not a fucking argument you absolute plebeian
>hurr all empire are equal coz they all fall XDD

columbia.edu/~saw2156/HunterBlatherer.pdf
livinganthropologically.com/2013/01/26/eric-wolf-europe-and-people-without-history/
livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10455752.2013.846490?journalCode=rcns20
louisproyect.org/2009/04/24/jim-blaut-on-jared-diamond/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.2003.35.issue-4/issuetoc
np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bv2yf/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_3_collision_at/
np.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2cfhon/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_11_lethal_gift_of/
history.ac.uk/reviews/review/51
web.archive.org/web/20130714031430/http://videosdigitals.uab.es/cr-vet/www/40300/1_2_McNeil01_ht34_world according to Diamond.pdf

The real reason Europe ended up dominating the world was not because of the continent location or resources but because the right events happened at the right time. It was really luck.

Then how did Europe succeed, and not Asia since they had even better conditions and resources? Not starting shit, I'm legitimatly asking.

Say that youre right, then what would be the explanation?

I'll give you a tip: it's not genetics

see

Sounds reasonable enough

1. we invented the printing press in 1440 which allowed the spread and cross-pollination of ideas and so much faster intellectual development than other parts of the world

2. we had Newton and Leibniz discover calculus before which our ability to model physical and engineering systems was pretty shit and after which we were able to storm ahead technologically and scientifically

2 points that I never see mentioned by historian-cucks.

>we

You DIDNT DO SHIT STORM FAG

We wuz inventors n shieet

>we

>WE WUZ INVENTORS N SHIT

>all history is the same

far more human progress and advancement has happened in the last 300 years than the 300 years before that or any period of 300 years previous.

believing that history will continue like before indefinitely is stupid

europeans are not genetically more intelligent than other caucasoids or mongoloids, but there is good reason to believe that subsaharan africans are genetically less intelligent than those previously mentioned groupings.

Nope

robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

>le autistic anger about how people casually refer to previous generations of their nation or ethnic group

>MUH IQ GAINS
>now we're subhuman by only 10 points

Really makes you think...

>implying they ever were

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

>progress

>only one race, the HUMAN race
>let's just throw taxonomy out of the window cuz humanz r speshull

Yes.

See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
>The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black or interracial children adopted by advantaged white families. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of environmental and genetic factors to the poor performance of black children on IQ tests as compared to white children
>Adopted, with two white biological parents 101.5
>Adopted, with two black biological parents 83.7
and
Factor Analysis of Population Allele Frequencies as a Simple, Novel Method of Detecting Signals of Recent Polygenic Selection: The Example of Educational Attainment and IQ.

Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) whose associations with intelligence seem to be robust because they have been replicated in several independent studies were chosen as representative of intelligence increasing alleles.

The first is rs236330, located within gene FNBP1L, whose significant association with general intelligence has been reported in two separate studies (Davies et al, 2011; Benyamin et al, 2013). This gene is strongly expressed in neurons, including. hippocampal neurons and developing brains, where it regulates neuronal morphology (Davies et al, 2011).

The second SNP is rs324650. It was included because its association with IQ has been replicated in four association studies (Comings et al, 2003; Dick et al, 2007; Gosso et al, 2006, 2007). This SNP is located in the gene CHRM2 (cholinergic receptor, muscarinic #2), which is involved in neuronal excitability, synaptic plasticity and feedback regulation of acetylcholine release.

East Asian populations (Japanese, Chinese) have the highest average frequency of beneficial alleles (39%), followed by Europeans (35.5%) and sub-Saharan Africans (16.4%).

ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312

>muh Minnesota test

these studies show what was never in doubt, that having access to a better education system and nutrition raises the average IQ of a group of people.

Which is why of course you can't compare IQ tests of children raised in subsaharan africa or jamaica to ones raised in the UK.

what this says absolutely nothing about is the fact that black people are also genetically predisposed to having a mean IQ below that of caucasoid or mongoloid peoples even when raised in the same conditions.

Brain size doesn't define your intelligence

livescience.com/163-big-brains.html

I'm getting a sense of deja vu.

Where did I mention brain size in my post, remind me cuccboi?

>can't falsify the results
>brah they don't matter

Really sets those neurons a-firing...

Nope, seeFurthermore

Nisbett (2012) suggests that high SES individuals are more likely to be able to develop their full biological potential, whereas low SES individuals are likely to be hindered in their development by adverse environmental conditions. The same review also points out that adoption studies generally are biased towards including only high and high middle SES adoptive families, meaning that they will tend to overestimate average genetic effects. They also note that studies of adoption from lower-class homes to middle-class homes have shown that such children experience a 12 - 18 pt gain in IQ relative to children who remain in low SES homes.

See

YOU GOT BTFO

race realism is a pseudo science, deal with it

hmm

Hmmm

>this test is inconclusive because I make a one-sentance, unsubstantiated claim saying so
>also I'm going to use a false dichotomy to imply that the results are inclusive unless they show that the difference is entirely genetic or entirely environmental, even though all that needs to be shown is that there is a genetic component and a environmental component (which has been mostly controlled for in the test yet the black adopted kids remain as far behind the white adopted kids as black people in the general population remain behind white people in terms of mean IQ)
>also please ignore the fact that the results are hugely statistically significant such that the probability that the black adopted children's IQs and white adopted children's IQs were sampled from the same underlying distribution is miniscule.

Hmmm

See

See how you're fucking retarded?

Again, BTFO

See

But wait a second; the source isn't The College Board; the source is actually given.

Not to mention you ignored all those other graphs and it seems to me that you've been BTFO back to the cuckshed
>hee haw I'll set him running in circles that'll show him

Im not saying all history is the same.

The trend of empires risong and falling will be the same.

The empires will be larger and more powerfull but they will rise and they will fall.

We just have to wait for 1 empire to become so powerfull it can rule the earth.

Empires are dead dude.

lmao it was published in the journal of blacks in higher education you lying, intellectually dishonest, left wing piece of shit.

jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html
>Family Income Differences Explain Only a Small Part of the SAT Racial Scoring Gap

>For both blacks and whites, family income is one of the best predictors of a student’s SAT score. Students from families with high incomes tend to score higher. Students from low-income families on average have low SAT scores. Because the median black family income in the United States is about 60 percent of the median family income of whites, one would immediately seize upon this economic statistic to explain the average 200-point gap between blacks and whites on the standard SAT scoring curve.

>But income differences explain only part of the racial gap in SAT scores. For black and white students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 in 2008, there still remains a huge 149-point gap in SAT scores. Even more startling is the fact that in 2008 black students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored lower on the SAT test than did students from white families with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000.

>But the fact is that even when family income levels are similar, we are still comparing black and white students who are as different as apples and oranges in terms of educational sophistication, family educational heritage, family wealth, and access to educational tools and resources. The average white family in the same income group is far better equipped than the average black family to prepare their children for success on the SAT test.

With empire I mean a country or state.

Also empires still exist, America is an empire just to name one.

What makes you think empires do not exist anymore?

A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities, as stated by Neisser.

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."

The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors that are seen as "acting white."
>Neisser 1996
>Ogbu 1978, 1994

>anerica
>empire

If America is an empire it's doing a shitty job.

Hmmm

peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf

non of the conclusions of this 2012 nisbett study you reference would explain why white adopted babies would achieve a flynn-effect adjusted mean Iq of 101.5 while black adopted babies would achive a flynn-effect adjusted mean IQ of 83.7 IF their underlying mean Iqs were the same.

Moore (1986) compared black and mixed-race children adopted by either black or white middle-class families in the United States. Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences.

Because they're into cuckold and cucking other races

They have the most powerfull army on the world with the most power projection capability.

They are doing really good.

China is on their ass however and they wont stay in this position for long.

See

And if you read the article by Lindsay you would see that, as demonstrated, that you are wrong

>Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support
>They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors that are seen as "acting white
>The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities
So all they have are possibilities; interesting.

Not to mention if a black president doesn't motivate you to do good at an IQ test then nothing will
No one is denying that black IQs are rising, but you're assuming that trend will continue, not to mention they're still 10 points below the average
>1986
>when every other test has been done in the 90's
hmmm

Also

brookings.edu/articles/black-americans-reduce-the-racial-iq-gap-evidence-from-standardization-samples/

So long as they rise, you have no proof of a closing point, considering the socio economic factors that effects them.

>get BTFO by malnourished farmers in Vietnam and illiterate goat farmers in Iraq/afganistan

Yeah no. Maybe in state on state conversational warfare that big military is useful but it's getting pretty hard to justify that big of a military since the end of the Cold War. Americas foreign policy is a disaster

Also China is on the verge of collapsing

Socio economic factors including

>poverty

>shitty health

>single motherhood rate

>single fathers

>thug culture

your post says
>literally only subsaharan africans have low mean IQ, all caucasoid and mongloid ethnic groups have mean IQs significantly higher
>the IQ tests are not culturally biased
>we're going to pretend that there is no evidence for there being a genetic cause of this, even though there is (ibc7.org/article/journal_v.php?sid=312, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study)
>maybe we can try and come up with yet another untested cultural explanation for why black people's brains are so much worse at spotting patterns than other ethnic groups?

wow good one.

Conventional*

>poverty
See pic
>shitty health
What, poor whites don't get lead levels?

>single mothers
>thug culture
>single fathers
All of which are the fault of blacks

And am I to assume white IQs won't also rise, due to the flynn effect?

SeeAnd read

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

The gap is still 10 points wide

>these mixed race babies have different genes and different environment to black babies and have higher mean IQs
>the difference must be entirely due to environment, not genes

Literally left wing "science" in a nutshell.

why not look at a study comparing black and mixed race babies where the environment was controlled for by looking at babies who were all adopted by upper-middle class white families.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
adjusted for the flynn effect:
>Adopted, with one white and one black biological parent 93.2
>Adopted, with two black biological parents 83.7

wow, look at that.

>thug culture fault of blacks

>not the fault of the police who brutalised them

>not the result of blacks being rejected from educational institutions

Ahhh, so you are retarded.

>implying they won't

White iq will rise as well.

>itz all whitey's fault we dindu nuffin
When will this meme end?

I looked at the graph, whites are living better lives than blacks.

If you were to round up the amount of blacks to whites you would see more blacks are living in poverty

>>not the fault of the police who brutalised them
>>not the result of blacks being rejected from educational institutions
Not even a /pol/fag but you've got to be joking

The gap is still closing

>Single families
More the result of the Democrat's great society. Marriage rates declined dramatically after that

Muh Minnesota

See>muh left wing science

Ok stormfag whatever helps you cope