This shit is legit, right?

This is better. It rightly doesn't even consider Africa, because niggers were never gonna reach a state of technological advancement in any kind of realistic scenario.

All this image is completely wrong.

Care to refute it?

First.
[citation needed] for all the information contradicting what JD said.

It likely has has minor errors and issues but it seems solid over all. The biggest issue (the one /pol/ likes to bring up) is obviously genetics (iq, disposition, etc.). Remove the political bias and it's a fair concern/objection, if nothing else. Personally, I don't think genetic iq differences are anything but marginal or trivial since I don't see how the most complex organ in history could be dramatically altered in a short biological period of time without rather extreme environmental pressures, of which I'm aware of none (all this basic survival skills humans used in Africa are all you need to get by basically anywhere else. Track animals, forage bushes and trees, create fire, etc.) Then there's the grandfather argument. Again, doesn't hold up to my understanding of anthropology. Seems entire communities migrated together in waves. Not to mention, Africa is a big and diverse fucking place, reaching the northwestern corners of Africa should require about the same amount of travel and effort as getting to inner Europe and near east.

There literally is a citation for one of the points, and the others are just generally accepted common knowledge that everyone who isn't a complete brainlet knows

>cahokia was based largely on the cultivation of a single crop, maze
npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/10/513963490/1-000-years-ago-corn-made-this-society-big-then-a-changing-climate-destroyed-the
>china was based on the cultivation of rice
The chinese get more than 60% of their daily caloric intake from rice
flavorandfortune.com/dataaccess/article.php?ID=842
>greater variety of domesticable crops
Crops that originate in america include: Maize (corn), maygrass, and little barley, Amaranth, quinoa, erect knotweed, sumpweed, and sunflowers, Common beans, tepary beans, scarlet runner beans, lima beans, and peanuts, Jicama, manioc (cassava), potatoes, sweet potatoes, sunchokes, oca, mashua, ulloco, arrowroot, yacon, leren, and groundnuts, Tomatoes, chili peppers, avocados, cranberries, blueberries, huckleberries, cherimoyas, papayas, pawpaws, passionfruit, pineapples, soursops and strawberries, Squashes, Chocolate, canna, tobacco, chicle, rubber, maple syrup, birch syrup and vanilla.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_food_origins#Americas
>animals
Firstly, the success of nations such as the Incans and Aztecs demonstrates that domestication of animals is not necessary for agricultural success. Secondly, on that point about domesticable animals in africa, here's a list of goat breeds and where they originated. As you can see, many are from african nations:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_goat_breeds
Same goes for cow breeds
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cattle_breeds
Sheep as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sheep_breeds
In fact, many sub-saharan tribes relied on cattle as their primary source of nutrients, including the hottentots.
>only urban civilizations can develop the shit required for military conquest
His point about the mongols is just common knowledge and doesn't need a citation.
(cont)

What you see is irrelevant. IQ has been shown to be mostly heritable and the gap between whites and blacks is quite wide.

Politics aside, you're acting as if the genetic argument states that some races ascended to super-brain levels while Africa and others were left behind

I should add the difference is *not* trivial, but it is also not purported to be so great that we could not reasonably assume that it had developed in recent times, genetically speaking.

(cont)
Disease did not play a significant role in the conquest of Africa, India or China
(cambridge history of africa, the honourable company).
Although disease weakened nations like the aztecs in the americas, it also had the same effect upon the conquistador's allies. Plus, shit didn't really start to hit the fan until AFTER the aztecs had been mostly subjugated. Even then, the conquistadors regularly beat the aztecs one-on-one (Carnage and Culture).
>china lacked the type of convoluted coastline necessary for dissidents to hide in
China has some of the roughest, most diverse geography on the planet, you wouldn't NEED a coastline to hide out on (I don't even know why Diamond brings this point up, to be honest....).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_China
>urban populations are less intelligent than non-urban populations
Akshually, there's evidence that higher intelligence just leads to more urbanization, not the other way around
voxeu.org/article/how-universities-helped-transform-medieval-world

Where is all the citations of Jared Diamond supposed quotes?

Is your argument that what the user in the picture said is wrong, or is it that diamond never said any of that?

I'm not going to do this point by point, but just right off the bat on the first one. By all means correct me if I'm wrong, but notice Europe didn't achieve any kind of arguable superiority or ascendancy until maybe the Romans, and this is also the period proceeding the opening up of the silk road. Simultaneously, every civilization connect to this trade developed roughly in proportion to its access to it, including ones around the horn of Africa. The relationship between access to central trade routes and rate and stage of technological development seems pretty direct and consistent through history.

>europeans did not achieve any kind of superiority until arguably the romans
>and this is also the period proceeding the opening up of the silk road.
>proceeding
>europeans achieved ascendancy before the silk road was a thing
how does this help your point

The image is no argument if it has no citation. I think this is pretty easy to understand.

That's why it's wrong.

I just provided citations for most of what that image said, though.

You're one demanding faggot

Yes.

Guns, germs and steel gave Europeans an advantage which they used to steal the best arable lands for themselves.

...

Where is the citation of what Jared Diamond said?
How easy is to spot a brainlet.

>appears to have little to no correlation
hmmmm

Compare Europe to Africa

I don't have one, I never read the book. I'm just saying that the other user's points are factual, whether or not they actually contradict what diamond said. You're the one arguing that his entire post is completely wrong.

try to read the entire thing user posted
>have diseases and better guns than other civilizations with better soil
>genocide them and take the soil
>?
>profit

>better guns
pretty much better everything

The image is supposedly quoting Jared Diamond.

If that's not what Diamond said, the image is propaganda and doesn't demonstrate anything. The image is wrong.

What prevented other great civilizations like the Chinese, the Indians or the Arabs to do the same as the Europeans? After all, gunpowder originated in Asia, and some of the best steel production was also in that region, like crucible steel that was produced in Merv or the production in Song China.

I personally say it was really just luck that allowed the Europeans to dominate the world, and it all has to do with that faithful voyage of Columbus.

Just because you're attacking a strawman doesn't mean your points are wrong, user, just that it doesn't refute what diamond said.

Of course it's heritable by some conception and degree, it's a biological function ultimately tethered to genetic expression. What you're not showing is that it's significantly differentiated by geographic origin/"race". So speaking of those IQ tests: the biggest issue by far is that not every variable is being controlled for. We don't know what's causing the ostensible 'gap'. Further to the point, there's a lot of misunderstanding about the difference between phenotype and genotype and what's actually being measured in these tests. If white people had a deep and pervasive culture of chopping their fingers off, /pol/ logic might tell you that white people genetically have fewer fingers than other races because they're always measured to have fewer fingers on average.

Except genes and hydraulic systems obviously.

The book is inherently untrustworthy and has an anti-european agenda. The author is a Jew.

1. The areas created by the divide of Eurasia contained multiple civilizations each, and they all had great contact with each other

2. Yes, and that's why they had large communities, but a) it's only one of the factors
b) the civilizations that had better crops than the europeans fell to european guns and diseases c) you ignore all other areas in the world like Haiti where they eat literal mud biscuits

3. Gonna need some sources™ on that

4. Acquire better understanding of what {more} means and how it differs from {more species}

Also the Europeans have hunted multiple species to extinction, like the European beaver and the dodo

5. Learn the difference between conquest and pillaging

6. The entire this is just wrong

7. >says that mountains and wastes hinder trade
>says that mountains and wastes are easily accessible and it's possible to survive in them
what did he mean by this?

8. Wrong for multiple reasons. a) absolutely nothing encourages smart people to procreate with intelligent people b) there is no proof that the intelligence of the child is genetically affected by the intelligence of the parent

I said the image is wrong.

The image is supposedly attacking JD. If that's not what JD said, then the image is wrong.

Even kids can understand this. It shows how you have additional intentions.

One of the major points I remember is that it talks about africa not having domesticatable beasts of burden and it simply isn’t true, lots of African tribes domesticated Bison and zebras can be domesticated it just was never done before the colonial era
All in all it is a fairly solid book

>btfoing white supremacists is anti european
really gets that noggin jogging

>*stares into pool of clear water*
>uhhh it’s just to cloudy to tell ughh there’s lots of variables uhhhh uhhh

>then the image is wrong
I can attack a strawman with objectively correct information, my attack may be misplaced and not useful but the information I present is still correct. Besides, whether he's quoting Jared or not isn't even your original point, its that his points themselves are wrong.
>[citation needed] for all the information contradicting what JD said.
You just shifted the goalposts to make it about the author attacking a strawman when your original point was that everything presented therein was wrong.

>it's heritable by some conception and degree
gonna need a source™
also what makes you think that intelligent people procreate with intelligent people?

An entire standard deviation or more is a pretty significant claim considering what were talking about, which is, again, the single most complex function of the most complex organ in the history of life. We're putting this up against, what, 80-100k years and essentially zero meaningful environmental pressure? I'm not seeing how this produces anything but trivial differences. That same time period and environment was barely enough to affect 'amount of melanin produced' and 'slightly narrower nasal passage'.

see

Advancement proceeding access to trade routes? What are you confused about?

Yeah this. As far as we know this far intelligence just isn’t inheritable. And dumb people have kids with smart people all the time

>We're putting this up against, what, 80-100k years and essentially zero meaningful environmental pressure?
>zero meaningful environmental pressure?
Oh boy

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/
>Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits.

doesn't prove any of my points wrong
in fact providing sources gives my argument on food (the europeans genocided civilizations with superior food by having germs and better guns) even more weight

Lol Veeky Forums btfo

>Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits.
It isn’t though. And even if it was the case there is no reason for two different groups of people to be dumber or smarter. They all have the same pressures

>NCBI says intelligence is heritable
>n-n-n-no it isn’t!
Lmao the absolute state of Veeky Forums

>No traits are 100% heritable

>For some areas of behavioural research—especially in psychiatry—the pendulum has swung so far from a focus on nurture to a focus on nature that it is important to highlight a second law of genetics for complex traits and common disorders: All traits show substantial environmental influence, in that heritability is not 100% for any trait.
from that same paper
also you failed to explain why intelligent people would necessarily procreate with other intelligent people, and also why that would take place in the first place, considering europe was once in no better state than new guinea or africa, meaning strength was of similar value in both areas of the world

You don't need a source, I'm talking about the way in which it's true by definition. IQ is a function of the brain, the structure of which is created by genetic replication. There isn't a part of your body that isn't created by this process, and every bit of your genes are heritable.

>It isn’t though. And even if it was the case there is no reason for two different groups of people to be dumber or smarter.
wait, there's no reason for rocket scientists to be smarter than children?
/pol/ btfo again.

Please tell me you're not going to start going on about Europe being cold or some shit.

>It isn't though
>he said, not providing a source to back up his ridiculous claim

>no traits are 100% heritable
I don't see how that hurts my point, the paper says that intelligence is extremely heritable but says that no traits (even non-intelligence related ones) are perfectly hereditable.
>why would intelligent people procreate with other intelligent people
I don't know, but we have scientific evidence that intelligence makes people more desirable as mates. scheib.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2015/05/2009_Prokoschetal.pdf
Hell, here's a paper that literally says that intelligence is more attractive to both sexes.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11276907
>why that would take place in the first place
I don't know, I'm not saying that niggers are stupid, I'm just correcting you on the fact that intelligence is hereditable.

>African winter is wet and fertile
>Europeam winter is snowy hellscape with no food
Those who could plan ahead would go on

There's no reason why animal species should be different since technically they all have the same pressures.

>The whopping 30 difference in IQ points had no impact on history at all goyim, Africa just didn't have any domestic animals!
youtube.com/watch?v=Ph8Vag9VxRU

I for one welcome our new Inuit master race overlords.

What did the inuit farm, permafrost?

I don't think IQ tests from the Neolithic are very reliable f@m.

Arctic peoples quite literally are more intelligent than europoors.

>shifted
Did JD said that?
If the basis of the argument of attacking JD are false, that means the image is wrong.

How do you measure intelligence?

Skin color obviously

G factor.

it is inheritable but not completely, meaning that dumb parents could result in smart offspring, and also that smart parents can result in dumb kids
and anyhow intelligence is attractive, an average woman would rather spread her legs for some retard with a sixpack than an average looking intelligent guy, and the average guy would much rather fuck a dumb slut with a phat ass than an average looking intelligent girl

>how does THIS ONE ZEBRA fit in with your logic? HAH, i win again

>and not completely
No trait is 100% inheritable.
>meaning that dumb parents could result in smart offspring, and also that smart parents can result in dumb kids
This is true for most traits, polygenetic ones included. Again, the study showed that intelligence was extremely hereditable, i'm not sure what your uncited points are supposed to demonstrate.
>an average woman would.....
I'm sure you can provide some scientific studies that show having a fat ass or chiseled abs is more likely to get you a mate than being smart.

>I'm sure you can provide some scientific studies that show having a fat ass or chiseled abs is more likely to get you a mate than being smart.
go out of your house and observe humans for 10 minutes

They actually have one of the fastest growing indigenous populations in the Americas.

>anecdotal evidence
"no"

>Meme-tier understanding of zoology and virology
>Severely underdeveloped, oversimplistic theories about environmental factors
>Education is in fucking physiology, not even a humanities field
>Admits to making his theory solely to provide an explanation to differences between humans that have nothing to do with race or genes, dismissing it for no reason but "muh equality"
>Unironically believes in "common sense" arguments that directly contradict academic consensus

Literally Veeky Forums in a nutshell

>Where is the citation of what Jared Diamond said?
In his book. Why the fuck are you in a thread about a book you've never read anyway?

>We have observed that women give greater weight to perceived physical attractiveness than intelligence in their mating decisions.
>Men also give greater weight to perceived physical attractiveness than intelligence in their mating choices.
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/60782/1/MPRA_paper_60782.pdf
you should really go out of the house more

dumb doubleposter
Fine, physical attractiveness is more important than intelligence to people, that doesn't disprove that intelligence isn't hereditable or even that it isn't selected for

>Disease only became a factor post-conquest
This is wrong. Please get an education before reposting /pol/ bullshit.

> The relationship between probability of men’s positive decision and women’s perceived intelligence is non-monotonic. The optimal level of women’s intelligence in men’s perception exists. This optimal value rises with
women’s perceived physical attractiveness.
>men literally find overly smart women unattractive

Yes, it explains that blacks are inferior because of the environment of Africa

Now by combining it with the theory of evolution, you understand that this inferiority was inscribed within their DNA (just like white superiority is) as the time passed, and that this is why even if you put blacks in another environment like Haiti or Detroit they will remain shit and if you put whites in a harsh environment they will still prosper like in Rhodesia or Australia

All this book does is to explain the origin of black inferiority, but it doesnt in any way deny it

>uncited powerpoint slide
reminder that smallpox fucked up cortes' native allies just as much as it fucked tenochitlan
Source: Carnage And Culture

it's inheritable but there's no reason why the kid should inherit the iq of the smart parent, or even have smart parents in the first place
see

>there's no reason why a kid should inherit the IQ of the smart parent
My studies literally show its inheritable
>but smart parents can have dumb kids!
Yes, that's how genetics works, its fundamentally based off probability.
>the optimal level of women's intelligence in men's perception exists
Firstly, it doesn't say anything about women's optimal perception of men's intelligence, secondly it doesn't say where that optimum level of intelligence is.

youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo

INTRACTABLY DIVIDED BY FORMIDABLE TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES!

This. Dumb people have smart children and smart people have dumb children. This happens all the time

There’s really no point to look into it. Intelligence while heritable, might as well not be. It really isn’t selected for anyway

The simple answer is genetic superiority

>heritability is inherently connected to probability, so sometimes smart people might have dumb kids
Probability plays a central role in heritability, event among 100% heritable traits, how do you not know this?
>it might as well not be
All that guy's post shows is that there's an upper limit to how smart people like their partners to be, and that physical features tend to win out in attractiveness. There is scientific evidence that intelligence is selected for right here

I didn't think I needed to cite widely known historical facts on a history board, but I guess this place is a shithole filled with retards that need to be spoonfed everything. (But believe random infographics with no source)

Here you go.

For reference: The Spanish conquest of Mexico begun in 1518

Another one

If that was actually the case, and it probably isn't, acquiring genetic superiority would depend on the environment to select such traits, meaning that success of Europeans is due to the qualities of European land, flora and fauna.

it is selected for just not by the opposite sex.