Is this true?

Is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

thepeskytruth.blogspot.ca/2012/01/are-asians-creative.html
amazon.ca/Asians-Less-Creative-Than-Westerners/dp/0130404756
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Inca_Empire
elpais.com/cultura/2007/06/20/actualidad/1182290405_850215.html
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

yes, they were ahead of the curve at a crucial time in humanity's development and stayed ahead until Japan's isolationism ended

Thanks to industrialization, yes.

It's as true as affirmations such as chinese being the number 1 people living in Asia, or Africans dealing with sunny arid environments.

Yet if you want to draw conclusions from there, for example superiority and civilization potential, then, as Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. The logical conclusion would be that Amerindians are superior to europeans.

clearly not if bacteria and 100 Spaniards on horseback bring you down

They were ahead in Antiquity *and* post-Renaissance.

>until Japan's isolationism ended
Just what are you implying here?

no. The advances in epistemology were most pronounced in the ancient age.

>epistemology
epistewhut, nigger?
Med niggers sitting around getting fanned with palm fronds by other niggers is pronounced in the ancient age as "turk roaches are coming to rape you and your woman and your horse and your dainty boyfriend too"

>1 bubonic critter wipes out 40% europeans
>get invaded by "nomads"

>20+ diseases murder 90% and some savages settle on the coastal side

Yes. Amerindians are superior to europeans.

ancient era had developed all tools necessary for an industrial revolution. Cement for roads. Improvements in engineering works that are still in use today, etc. The OP's pic just brushes over the fact that empires first dawned during that era and lasted longer than modern states have to this day. Because it probably only lists 'science' as using the scientific method. When better methods already existed, and were used to come up with the understandings of atomic theory, states of matter, metallurgy, horse breeding, ship building, farming, etc. In comparison, the modern age managed to mostly just invent steel. Which there are already records of its existence in prior ages. Electricity was used in the past as well in the form of coal power.

It's completely meaningless. Obviously most scientific discoveries have happened since the invention of the printing press and in particular the Scientific Revolution in western Europe, but absolutely none of that would be possible without earlier accomplishments (see ).

And since modern Western accomplishments are built on the accomplishments of classical antiquity (which it is retarded to call 'European' or 'Western'), similar accomplishments made in other areas like China, India or the Islamic world are dismissed because they don't affect us today, regardless of how impressive they are. For example, a 13th century Arab discovered the pulmonary system, but this knowledge never reached the Western world and had to be 'rediscovered' there in the 17th century. Only the 17th century discovery informed modern science, so the equally impressive 13th century one is ignored. Ultimately this means only Western and Classical accomplishments are really taken into account, while stuff going on in say China are inevitably ignored no matter how impressive. Basically what I'm saying is relevance today =/= 'human accomplishment'. Not that this chart accurately depicts relevance either, since it's clearly ignoring technological, economic and cultural developments. When everything's taken into account, the most important developments throughout most of human history since the end of the paleolithic up to the antiquity have come from the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, then from across Eurasia for most of the Middle Ages, and then Western Europe from maybe the 14th century on.

That 'graph' OP posted is from the book Human Accomplishment.

It doesn't exclude the accomplishments of others.

It is up to debate whether they had a lead over China in antiquity, China had blast furnaces and a plethora of other innovations.

>>until Japan's isolationism ended
>Just what are you implying here?
When Japan adopted western technology it could no longer be said that the west had an overwhelming lead.

They didn't have newtonian physics.

They had enough to make cannons, trbutchets and horse archers. You think that alone, calculus, beats the scientific advances of thousands of years of Empire?

>Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans
>being hunter gatherers who get btfo by 20 spanish dudes on horses

SeeAmerindian superiority is based on their higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

It's strange. East Asians edge Westerners out in intelligence yet haven't dominated.

Europeans are generally much more creative though.

Are eurangutans really this stupid?

>the modern age managed to mostly just invent steel
so where is the ancient egyptian iphone

>east asians are more intelligent
Correct, and supported by IQ research.
>creativeness
Pseudoscience. Try again.

Not an argument.

next to Otep's magic t-shirt

>Europeans are generally much more creative though.
Because you’ve undertaken an intensive study of European and Asian high culture to determine this, right?

>pseudoscience
Not really.

It's an actual concern in China and brought forth to battle the ongoing over-extremes of East Asian education.

>East Asians aren't creative
explain anime

The lack of an ancient Egyptian iphone contradicts that statement.
They didn't have magical powers. Their religion sucked and built all those pyramids for nothing.

>Because you’ve undertaken an intensive study of European and Asian high culture to determine this, right?
Not me, but others did. It's kind of interesting.

Anime is less creative and more variable. It's full to the brim of overused tropes and stereotypes.

Ashkenazi Jews currently hold the highest IQs

>Asians are smarter
>Europeans are more creative

It's a bit of a trade-off. Both are good in their respective fields.

The idea that we're all the same under the skin is flawed.

>It doesn't exclude the accomplishments of others.
Yes it does, at least in regards to science. It only includes figures who are cited as important to the development of modern science, rather than judging each on their own merit. Hence, William Harvey is included for his discoveries which are essential to the development modern biology. Ibn al-Nafis, who made many of the same discoveries centuries before, is not included because his accomplishments didn't go on to influence modern science. If somebody had translated al-Nafis' writings into Latin in the Middle Ages, and they had been widely read, then he would have influenced modern science and probably been included in the list. In other words, Ibn al-Nafis is excluded not because his accomplishments were lesser but because of chance.

I'm just using him as an example, and any accomplished scholar of China, India, Persia or even to some extent medieval Europe (since a lot of medieval accomplishments were ignored in later centuries) could be affected the same way. If an accurate list of all human accomplishment was to be created (an impossible task anyway) it would have to include all accomplishments made anywhere at any time, not just what happened to influence modern science.

You haven't read the book, have you...?

The book is the accomplishment of the world's cultures from 800bc to 2000(1950). Not exclusively science.

I'm not sure what you're smoking.

Nafis is actually cited in it. Perhaps his works just weren't as impressive as the others.

I'm talking about the OP pic, which is about science. Yes, I know there are token chapters on things like 'Chinese painting' and 'Arabic literature', but I'm talking about OP's pic trying to claim that there has been barely any scientific accomplishment outside of Europe or before 500 years ago. A conclusion like that can only be made by ignoring accomplishments that didn't directly contribute to modern science, which means most accomplishments made anywhere outside of Early Modern Europe and ancient Greece.

>It is retarded to call classical Greece and Rome European

Or maybe Europe just accomplished more...? ...Much more?

That graph isn't saying how little other parts of the world contributed to the sciences. It's comparing them.

Can you be more specific? I searched for him on the Google Books preview but couldn't find his name. Where is he listed? Is he listed under scientific accomplishments or under Arabic literature?

Even if he is given a mention in there, it's still clear that accomplishments are being judged for their influence on modern science rather than individual merit.

>arbitrarily defined landmasses are more important than cultural regions and civilizations
I suppose Thales was an Asian and Ptolemy was an African then.

Europe accomplished more in the last 500 years. If you look closely, the graph makes it look like Europeans were the only people who accomplished anything before then, except for some barely visible spikes around 1200.

>trade off
The thing is that science confirms that eastern asiatic people are more intelligent. But only retards think "creativeness" is even measurably defined.

The book cites that Europeans accomplished most during Antiquity and post-Renaissance. They were the backwater of the world at other points.

East Asia and the Middle-East were the scientific hotspots outside of those two periods.

So much done in a very short amount of time. If anything the other cultures had it better for far longer.

I'm acknowledging this? East Asians *are* more intelligent on average. Yet Westerners have pulled heaps more innovations out of their asses than Asia.

Ever look up the Innovation Index? Updates every year. Europe is in the lead and China is lagging far behind. Singapore is currently 7th.

Yes. Really.
Yet "creativeness" keeps being the biggest unscientific meme out there with a few exceptions.

>If you look closely, the graph makes it look like Europeans were the only people who accomplished anything before then

I think you're just being paranoid. Or you hate the idea of whites doing anything.

Not an argument.

There is no science in creativity, you fucking moron.

We only need to look at the innovation of differing nations?

You sound triggered.

>They were the backwater of the world at other points
By no measure was Europe a backwater in the High Middle Ages.

>East Asia and the Middle-East were the scientific hotspots outside of those two periods.
Yes, but the graph makes it appear that nothing was accomplished between those two periods, regardless of where the 'scientific hotspot' was. It creates the false impession that ancient Greece and post-Renaissance Europe were the only highly accomplished cultures in history. I'm not calling the author some kind of racist, I'm just saying this graph is meaningless and I'm sick of people posting it thinking it's anything more profound than 'most things were discovered after the printing press'.

>"whites doing stuff in history?"
>"my sjw senses are tingling"

>innovation index
Most of them asiatic based invention revisionism derivations.

Or I can just read the graph.

>pseudoscience
Ok, so it's just bullshit.

It's only as meaningless as you think it is. I think it's the gap that's pissing you off.

If you want to uneducated yourself, sure. Anything white related annoys you, doesn't it? :^)

most of Europe isn't White

>to uneducated
Is that a typo, or you are just a mutt sucking off """white"""s with pseudoscientific stuff?

>Asians are smart
smugface.png
>Whites are creative
RAAAAAAGE

Can't say anything nice about being white anymore

>20+ diseases
Wut? It was almost entirely just smallpox

>can't argue against scientific credibility
>cannot even address my post
Hmm?

Wrong. The first epidemic killed the Inca king and many of his sons, alongside a masice demographi decline before europeans settled in Peru. Later the rest of the epidemic diseases kept fucking with them until 1800, they having at least a 60%+ death rate.

>Whites are more creative than Asians

This guy says it all
thepeskytruth.blogspot.ca/2012/01/are-asians-creative.html

The sad truth is that, yes, Whites are much more creative.

D'aawww, it's ok. You may not be creative but you sure are smart!

Why are you so butthurt about scientific facts?
Why do you assume I'm asian?

What are these scientific facts you speak of, user? ;^)

This.
The effects of disease are pretty powerful and long-lasting, especially before the modern era and modern medicine.
It's kind of hard to visualize these days epidemics that can kill millions of people or kill 70-90% of an entire population in a region because that just doesn't happen anymore.
And it didn't help the native americans that they had no immunity to these newly introduced diseases.

>forgetting past posts
Low IQ maybe?

Funny that this is even a topic.

There's an actual book written by an actual ASIAN about this.
>amazon.ca/Asians-Less-Creative-Than-Westerners/dp/0130404756

Do you honestly think that Asians are as creative as whites..? Really..?

Higher development rate doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Amerindians were lame, deal with it.

>keeps being pseudoscience
Hmm...?

...

How do you measure scientifically, creativity?

Anime? You mean the thing that was copied from western animation?

It's cultural. Westerners are given more freedom to go their own way.

In the east you can't even talk back to your elders.

I believe theres an intelligence test thats supposed to measure creativity somewhat objectively, can't remember the name of it tho

Post the whole graph faggot

Asians are less open minded despite having higher visual IQs, if you want to go into that.

Higher development rate makes the same sense as people achieving civilization advancement of 30000 years in less time, due to their genetics as the geographic circumstanes show more disadvantages compared to europeans. In other words a logical conclusion is Amerindians having more civilization potential compared to europeans.
So, if civilization potential is an indication of superiority, then Amerindians are superior to europeans.

The memory of the Koreo-Finnish hyperwar is just too much for me to bear

>as Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans.
What?

>europeans:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to neolithic: 15000 years(30000BC-15000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 6000 years (15000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 4000 years (15000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 4000 years (3000BC-1000 AD)
Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians had more civilization potential than europeans. Amerindians are superior to europeans. Deal with it.

Where is the scientific proof?

Aztecs hadn't even reached a stone age level of development by the time the Spaniards showed up.
Incas were even more backwards.

You're just shitposting for the sake of shitposting, aren't you? I doubt you're even here to learn.

Yay! Based incatard, how many times did you post that pasta?

>hurr durr we intellirence whaito piggu

Wrong. Incas were in the early bronze age. Aztecs lacked accesible tin deposits and veins, yet they had even middle-ages civil engineering. They developed writing in less time and had also a higher development rate compared to europeans.

The irony...

Where is the scientific research about the definition of creativeness?

>this damge control
Lmfao, a superior race doesn't get destroyed in a 1 to 595 battle in their favour,when their enemy is months away from any reinforcements.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Inca_Empire
>m-muh diseases
Disease hadn't yet set in when the main battle took place, the worst was yet to come and filthy pagans deserved every bit of it. The Spanish speaking Catholic rape babies that are left over are the result of their sins.

It seems like you can't deal with archeological facts...
>pasta
As much as GRT books being "copied and pasted" every while.

>battle
The link doesn't show any battles, monkey.
Most battles were won by Incas, even eurangutans weren't even fighting as the civil war ended completely in 1570-1572. And most recent research keeps revealing the ammount of made up lies of the "chronicles".

>disease hadn't set
As I mentioned before, Imperial Incas won most battles.

Amerindian superiroity is based on their higher development rate compared to europeans. How is this hard to get?

>imperial incas won most battles
With the spanish?

>spanish
There are less than 10 corpses which died by spaniard weapons.

Imperial Incas won most battles against the Amerindian side which spaniards supported.

Yes because in ancient times cities were being built and great leaders emerged from the masses.
While Octavian was battling his rivals and fighting for the eventual Pax Romana what do you think the Indians were doing in North America?

Do you have a source for that

It's on the same website of archeological findings that show that there are more than 10 corpses which show death by spaniard weapons.

Yes but what's the url

Of the lack of research?

Lack Of what lack of research? I was asking for the source on which corpses showed death by spanish weapons.

Of course there are corpses of that kind.
elpais.com/cultura/2007/06/20/actualidad/1182290405_850215.html

Yet, it seems that the victims were actually kidnapped and then shot by spaniards.

Only retards think that intelligence is measurably defined either. IQ is a meme and should be treated that way.
The correlation between IQ and success in life is actually explained by education. You have good education (and a culture that values it, thats why ashkenazi jews have the highest IQ), you will have a higher IQ and a higher paid job.
I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component though, but people take IQ way too seriously.

Yes it does. For example Murray outright states he does not include anything listed in Needham's Science and Civilization in China because he considers including it to be "unfair" because it should only appear in proper sources that are "universal." Roughly paraphrasing he says it would be like using a microscope to search for Chinese science sources but not for German science sources.

What a coincidence that those universal books are all western written though.