Serious, not /pol/, but what makes white people so more creative than other races?

Serious, not /pol/, but what makes white people so more creative than other races?

>I-I'm not /pol/ guys
>posts /pol/ tier infograph

Fuck off, cuck

>France above Germany
g*rms btfo

You can tell a /pol/ user made this

>avoid discussing the facts
>try to ad hominem an imaginary boogeyman instead

You're not looking at creativity so much as the extant sources and names known to modern Western Civilization, a list that's heavily skewed by the fact that a lot of knowledge before and during the Classical period not involving either Greece or Rome was lost, and non-Western knowledge during and after the Medieval period was unknown to the West since translations never found their way to us, and much of it was again lost to time.

Murray's work is a survey of fame, according to Western culture, i.e. who/what are the most famous people/events in Western history. It's basically measuring Human Accomplishment the way that "Christian Dark Ages" troll chart measures 'Scientific Advancement.'

With that in mind, the charts are actually a demonstration of how much notoriety in the Anglosphere is skewed towards post 19th century figures and events, how the Renaissance/Enlightenment is mostly remembered for just a handful of names, and how no one cares to recall more than a few names before 1600 outside of various Greek, Roman, and Arab Golden Age enthusiasts.

The obvious weakness of this metric is that these graphs would look absurdly different if done from the perspective of a different dominant culture at their historical height.

I've seen this graph get used by a lot of people, I doubt its just /pol/ that uses it, even if it is probably the most well-liked by the /pol/acks.

What are the metrics for these charts? How are they measured?

Why do you post propaganda to sustain your argument?

>claims not to be /pol/
>posts /pol/ tier bullshit that doesn't explain anything about the charts
>gets butthurt when no one wants to stoop to discussing clear /pol/bait being passed off as "facts"
>muh ad hominem
>muh boogyman

Fuck right off back to your hole.

Fame. Murray spends an entire section trying to make the case that accomplishments can be counted based on whether the name or event is known to us or not.

...

Source me on that. Also I would like to know how this was measured.
What is that you say? It's not from a book but from a dubious website?

I don't agree with him, just answering the user's question. I mean it's Charles Murray after all.

>Charles Murray
What a literal retard and what a retarded method.

It's from Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment" and the author's political leanings makes him popular among ideologues.

Yeah, I found his name ITT. The method is a joke though. I couldn't have handed something like this in in the first semester.
>read Western biografie
>oh Jeez it says Westerners invented everything
>Quelle.surprise.tiff

>horseshit science and statistics
>not /pol/

>I couldn't have handed something like this in in the first semester.
He doesn't normally submit his work for peer review anyway. His audience is more political and idealistic.

The scientific method was discovered in Europe which allowed for a scientific revolution.

For over 95 percent of their history Europeans were primitive hunter-gatherers just like everyone else.

>Civilisations in the Middle East, China or India never invented anything before the 1900s

dumb /pol/ poster

And "Significant events"? Really? How did he measure that?

Go back to /pol/ cuck

>How did he measure that?

See Getting into more detail, Murray basically counted any figure or event that appeared in more than 50% of encyclopedias and compendiums for a subject. Obviously the problem with that is English compendiums of Middle Eastern, Indian, and Chinese historical figures and events are pretty incomplete compared to available sources on Renaissance and Enlightenment compendiums.