Just saw this on Twitter

> I don't know any asian great person.
> I can't name any asian invention.
> They must be stupid! XD
This graph in nutshell. I bet that author is british or french, as it can't even name american inentions that realistically should outnumber everyone else.

Bumping, I want solid discussion about this.

Here is similar chart that is backed up by data.

West European Master Race

it's in the genes

Most notably the terrible labeling. You can't write Austria-Hungary and Slovakia together. What did they've meant by Balkans? Are Greeks, Turks and Romanians included?

Another one that is also 1400-1950.

I wonder what would happen, if they substracted Jews.

> art
> literature

It seems like Italy is really overrated.

If western euros are so great, how come they didn't tame anything apart from rabbits?

prepare to lose that lead you have yank now that you're a Brown mullatto shithole m8

What app did you use for that?

>He doesn't realize that we're literally brain draining all the smartest people to work at our top unis and tech companies and thus increasing the proportion of smart genes

So pretty much the Blue Banana?

It's all ogre my friend

This is the future you chose

What is wrong with Egypt and Argentina???

your country decides who gets to be known so yeah, that doesnt mean shit

> pantheon.media.mit.edu
Very useful to check things like that.

Russians tamed fox.

On my phone at the moment (yeah, yeah), is it possible to make ones that encompass the entire known history?

Legit curious how Europe post 15th century measures up to rest.

why is USA the only developed country to prefer ass

So more or less white. And white men prefer white women, most of the time.

Seems like future is on the pale side...

>All the retardes who didn`t read the definitive book on how snowniggers created the modern world
Kek.

Go back to sucking Jared Diamonds cock faggots

High percentage of browns m8.

You seen Detroit recently?

Just sayin'.

>USA
>Developed

What book?
Legit question, I am curious.

Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 - Charles Murray

Looked at Czechia was disappointed then looked at Spain not so bad after all.
Someone know the reason for Spain?

The US "arts" one is inflated by shitty hollywood stuff

Just some random guys here and there.

Well, this one [] is for entire history and this one [] is for 1500 to 1950.

Interesting but I mean that's not possible Spain population is much bigger we Czech were at point when our language practically didn't exist and our population I mean hard to believe that graph

It is from a study by Japan's equivalent of the department of trade and industry and they based it on the importance of inventions. Culture doesn't factor into it.

Does anyone have the source for that and the other picture?
Would like to read it all.

> importance of inventions
I dunno, it's a pretty subjective concept.

My real stipulation which such language is the vagueness of "significant event/person", with no real solid bar set on what describes said event or person, what is included or exclude is really at the author's discretion.

Would Tokugawa's and his victory at Sakigahara not classify as a significant event/person, where maybe the author included Austerlitz as a significant event? we don't know.

and the author notes that these nations didn't start appearing until the 19th century, so what classifies as a German or Italian achievement when their borders were ebbing and flowing? he doesn't provide an answer in the passage within the picture, so it just leaves so much in the air rather than a few graphs that seem impossible to make without some form of confirmation bias.

Okay, let's scrap the nation bits.

What about ''Europe''?

But Austerlitz is arguably more significant than Tokugawa's victory.

Compare the stories of Wu Youke and Antonie van Leeuwenhoek who were (almost) contemporaries.

Wu Youke was a doctor who inferred the transmissibility of disease through his observations, however he existed during the chaotic war between the Ming and Qing and his work didn't progress far.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek rose from commoner to the middle class and though not a doctor he was the first to observe micro-organisms and disseminate the information due to his access to microscopes and correspondence with other scientists across Europe, a luxury Wu Youke did not have.

Who knows how rapidly medicine would have advanced if Wu Youke's book on epidemics was available to the Royal Society, Antonie and others and how many lives would have been saved. It really makes you think.

This is a common story and explains the vast majority of the "great divergence". There were plenty of scientists outside Europe and criticism of the chart is partly warranted, though the accusation it is chauvinism I think is unwarranted (seeing as the info comes from Japan that pretty much discounts it). The fact is they were much more isolated and so couldn't form connections, limiting their ability to use the latest technology or get their name stamped in the history books. What happened is not fair, but we are not here to determine what is fair or not, just what happened.

>abstract science is subjective
that's irrational, it is obvious you have a chip on your shoulder over racism

>Wu Youke was a doctor who inferred the transmissibility of disease through his observations

Isn't this what people did in Ancient Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance?

Significance of discoveries is subjective even in fields like mathematics.

When you think about it a lot of chinese inventors and scientists met with really really shitty ends.

>Who knows how rapidly medicine would have advanced if Wu Youke's book on epidemics was available to the Royal Society

What? Europe had access to similar works by girolamo fracastoro mid 16th century, before youke was even born.

what's up with the map top right, germany has weird borders, and then in literature they are completely differnet. what is this nonsense

I really hate this style of overexposed profile pictures.

Can't really say why either. It just hurts the eyes.

its the HRE
>
>
>

Which included Norther Poland and to a degree the Baltic states. Presumable because they included the Teutonic Order state.

The literature map is presumable for... Literature. Which I take to mean any and all German literature, even that written in Poland. But this is just guessing on my part.

Argentina is white

Bump.

There's a lot of legwork that they seem to ignore before an invention becomes fully commercially viable and gets produced en masse.

Also they attribute 25% of the most important inventions to America, but are only considering 1400-1950, which would be way off.
If they just mean 25% of all inventions up to present day, that is very dishonest.
The chart also doesn't even show 5% Japanese, and NA only shows 20% despite the quote saying otherwise?
They even put Ancient Western World in their significant events at a fraction of NA and don't represent East Asia at all, how does that represent all of human history?

I know people really like the age of modern technology, but if you're grouping by significant EVENTS in all of history, that is blatant bias.
The amount of significant events in the creation of computers is actually pretty small, it only took place in the past century, it wouldn't take you long to list all of them.
The events caused disproportionate growth compared to their merit as scientific achievements because of the American private sector pumping money into development, but there wasn't THAT many actual innovative leaps forward,
at least relative to human achievement as a whole.
Like the origin of mathematics itself, origin of physics, origin of biology, origin of chemistry, origin of Neolithic/Bronze/Iron civilization, origin of written language, origin of literally everything else that had to be done first?

But nope, we just go
>hey I made a smaller transistor
merits more weight than all of those past achievements, clearly

>Bell Curve guy

into the trash it goes

If you look at academic reviews and critiques of the source material (Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray), the validity and authenticity of the book is largely discredited and Murray is accused of selective bias and manipulating data. Especially in his argument that innovation in general is on the decline throughout world societies.

techlawjournal.com/series/innovation_03/20031120_murray.asp

Oh it's him, well now it makes sense why the chart is complete garbage

How do you even compare the significance of events and achievments from 3000 bc and the 20th century?

The neolithic revolution counts for one. So does the BigMac.

>Can't even make a proper chart
>Expect me to take it seriously

Iceland.

And best Korea.

>russia
>western europe

everything you use.

Looks bretty accurate desu

I wouldn't give it too much credit. It was written by a person with agenda and the identification of significant people is too naive and biased in arts and probably philosophy too.

To explain on the naive part: The author just browsed encyclopedias and picked names that appeared often, instead of consulting people who knew their shit about the history of the field.

What's up with the reptilian eyes?

Relevant

I beleive it's

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment

I don't understand the controversy here. It's common knowledge that Western Europe since about 1500, due largely to the invention of the printing press, went through scientific, economic, philosophical and technological revolutions which created the modern world. This involved a huge number of inventors, scientists, industrialists, philosophers, etc. Of course those people, being both recent and relevant to the whole world, are going to be well known and widely cited.

This is hardly some huge revelation, it's preschool history. Everybody everywhere with even the slightest historical education knows this. It doesn't mean that Europe is more 'relevant' in world history, since absolutely none of Europe's accomplishments would have been possible without earlier developments in Asia. It just means that Western Europe was the most recently influential civilization, and thus the most immediately relevant to the present day.

600 years ago the Islamic world was more relevant, and most scholars were Muslims citing other Muslims and a few Greeks, but that doesn't mean Muslims were the most important civilization in history at that point. 500 years in the future the most cited scholars might be Martian colonists for all we know while Earth becomes a backwater, and Earth's history might be as relevant to them as the Bronze Age Middle East is to us today, but again that wouldn't make Mars the most important civilization in human history, just the most immediately relevant.

Bump.