If Asians are more intelligent on average than whites...

Mongols hated China more than they hated Europe

They weren't. Why do people who make these kinds of threads always historically retarded?

good call, user

Yeah true, look in east asia Japan and South Korea have high IQs and there pretty wealthy look at the less wealthy east Asian countries and they score poorly

IQ != creativity

While Asians are good are good at perfecting existing technology, they suck at inventing new stuff. It's gotten so bad that in China if you can invent stuff they will literally let you out of jail for any crime. Of course, this had lead to "underwriter inventors" who invent stuff on behalf of those in jail, for money of course.

the reason why the chinese didn't have an industrial revolution as soon as the british was because coal in china is extremely hard to extract, mostly because of lack of wood and poisonous gasses that would often kill workers.

They were ahead of whites until 1500-1700 retard. Actually just about everyone else was

They came up withthe most accurate pi representation and shit like Gaussian elimination (Mozi) thousand years before Europe did, a math method that's above calculus level.

The first to invent suspension bridges, horseless carriages (sailing carts), the first encyclopedias, the most advanced ships until about 1600s, land mines and sea mines, escapement mechanisms, guns, the printing press 400 years before Guttenberg 'invented' it, rockets that were developed enough to be used in battle, etc.

Europe didn't even accept the concept of negatives numbers until fucking leibniz.

>but my sociology professor says whites were always on top because Shakespeare and Greece copied Babylon

Whites didn't do shit until 1700, Europe was the worst place to live until then.

> but then why isn't China ahead of Europe

Because eastern countries mind their own fucking business. India has never invaded another country and China never tried into any other country like Alexander the homo and British tried into India, at their primes.

Europe was into Africa and all over even with internal problems. The east's kindness was the only reason Europe rose. Free from harassment Europe copied and advanced technology for hundreds of years, only to destroy the old summer palace and try to rewrite history once they were on top

>Because eastern countries mind their own fucking business.
everything else about this explanation is pretty good, but I take issue with the idea that eastern countries aren't complete dicks as well.

The geographical barriers and issues with stretching supply lines, as well as the constant internal strife in china explains why they didn't try to conquer europe. Just take a look at the japanese, the mongols, etc to instantly resolve any issue in your mind that the east 'minds it's own business.'

Far above any cultural or genetic differences, china existed the way it did for centuries because of the geological and political issues that existed there.

see:
for why china didn't conquer the world. It's nothing fancy, nothing hard to understand, simple resource acquisition issues caused china to fail where Europeans happened to succeed.

Some eastern countries harass more than others. You can't escape India, and China was fine with those 'in it's territory', per se. I'll give that they were different within borders.

They had the resources to slap the Muslims and Tibetans on the wrist when they tried to block trade or misbehave and yet they never treated the Philippinos+etc the way the Portuguese and Spanish did.

Japan almost always trying to conquer China, no surprise what they did.

Resource delivery is not that big of deal, first rule is use the resources of those you conquer not to drag them halfway across the world.

Europe (France, British, etc) is/are not alone in their behavior, the Muslims and Persians were kind of the same with trying to conquer the world.

But that's not the only thing countries ever tried to do

Fake quote.

Yeah but this version doesn't make westerners the bad guys

My jewelry inspired philosophy requires me to root for the little guy

How did China get so large? Didn't they genocide a shit load of peoples?

>Some eastern countries harass more than others.
considering that the east has consistently been the most violent and destructive sector of the planet for the last 2,000 odd years, that's an understatement. The violence of the west pales in comparison to the wars, rebellions, and famines that occurred in the china alone, so much so that Chinese political doctrine had a hard enough time keeping itself together, let alone conquering other places.

pic related. long story short: famines, warlords.

I think that says more about the accidental nature of some of the West's advances than anything. They can be attributed to being at the right place at the right time.

If Romans were whites, why did they never get as far as modern Western civilization, despite being around for about as long?

Gaussian elimination is typically taught after single-variable calculus, but it's really fucking easy in comparison

Europe, outside of those areas connected with the middle east through the mediterranean, was a shithole for most of its history.
Since the invention of writing, for something like 3000 years every important innovation happened in the middle east first.
If race has a relation to development, it's clearly secondary.

>comparing past achievements against modern mathematics
Earlier mathematicians do the more basic stuff for us first. It's silly to compare when they had to advance mathematics while we just have to look back.

>fucking Kek took them so long to invent 0
>guise it's pretty fucking obvious the diameter of a circle has a constant ratio with its circumference and it's 3.1415...
>Lmao negative numbers

>gunpowder
>muskets
>rockets
>steel
what is the history of technology

>muskets
They invented handcannons you pleb not muskets.

>Steel
ffs have you actually open a historical textbook before?

>we wuz kangzz

>If Asians are more intelligent on average than whites, how come I still feel superior even though I never achieved a fucking thing in my life myself???

they waz for a while though.

I think Asian genetics degenerated at some point in China. The more ancient you go in China the more intelligent the writings. It seems like the mongols or some other group killed all the intelligent ones and degenerated the genes.

Middle East had something similar happen when baghdad was genocided which was a concentration of the best and brightest. I think the mongols tended to kill the best people of a civilization or society.

>They weren't.
They pretty much were for 500 years. The Japanese didn't even know how to treat steal until the Portuguese taught them and this was remarkable for the Chinese in later wars.

>Whites didn't do shit until 1700
M8 40 Spaniards defeated thousands of Chinese and Japanese pirates in the XVI century... they had worse weapons, inefficint ships,they were much worse engenieers than Europeans and were pretty backwards at the time. Europe surprassed China way before 1700.

There may be other traits involved that they are lacking in, such as creativity or abstract thought

>Europe, outside of those areas connected with the middle east through the mediterranean, was a shithole for most of its history.
Holy fuck user. Europeans reached the iron age pretty fast and even barbarians had written language which is more than most African tribes ever accomplished. Rome and Greece were super advanced civilizations and the high and mid middle ages europe was pretty fucking advanced to the point that they made most eastern technology obsolete

Go the fuck back to /pol

Containment board.

>all that bullshit
lmao pajeet education

They also had no conception of mathematical proof

All of their mathematical results were of the form
do x
do y
do z
now you have your answer

>bottle rockets
FIFY

>muh culture
there's moar going on then just culture asshat.

It is when you are talking about how technologically successful a race is. It is a fairly substantial factor in that regard.

>Revised by whom. OP?
It is perfectly obvious to anyone that the asians failed to achieve the heights of Western society despite the fact that they most likely developed embrionic knowledge of math and engineering thousands of years earlier.

I think culture and system would play a larger role than IQ

>system
Lmao, what is that?

I'd fuck Murphy so hard ngl, she should not be that attractive for like a 10 yr old.

Japanese blast furnaces, tatara, existed since sixth century AD.

>pirates
Do did the Chinese dynasty.

its adult makeup dude, remove it and she looks like any 10 yr old.

based kikes sexualizing prime cunny

IQ is pretty shit as a measure of intelligence, and in any case, intelligence is obviously multidimensional.

IQ started out as a way to detect slow children while they could still be helped (look harder for undiagnosed illness, malnutrition, isolation, understimulation). For practical reasons, they tried to make it so one test could be used for both sexes.

The principle of designing the tests to make the mean scores of men and women come out equal was retained as IQ came to be used for all sorts of other purposes, but it's one that should clue you in right away to how bad IQ is.

How good would a "athletics quotient" be if one of the design constraints was that men and women should get equal average scores? It would be a trainwreck.

go to bed Pajeet

>suspension bridges
There were no real ones before they were invented in the West in the modern era. You're talking about rope bridges, which are such an obvious use of a rope that no reasonable person would call them an "invention". They're also obviously shitty.

>(sailing carts)
Wow, that was an important invention.

>the printing press 400 years before Guttenberg 'invented' it
...and why didn't they have an explosion of literacy and knowledge? They hadn't invented nearly what Gutenberg did, which was suitable for mass-producing books at a hundred times the rate of scribes. Printing toys existed in the West as well long before Gutenberg, but there are few references to them because they didn't matter.

>rockets that were developed enough to be used in battle
To be tried in battle. But nothing like the devastating cannons invented in the West.

In the East, many clever ideas were fiddled with, but they couldn't make dramatic creative leaps to well-developed, mature technology. They were limited to what could be reached by small, incremental steps, the same difference we see today.

Lrn2technology, historyfag

I can see a number of factors

1. The geography of China meant it could be ruled as a single empire. This led to monoculture and the failure to allow divergent views. Inevitably this discouraged innovation.

2. For whatever reason the IQ range in China is lower than in Europe - the standard deviation is lower. This translates into fewer people with very high IQs - who drive scientific progress. It also translates into fewer people with IQ 110+. People with IQ < 110 are a drain on society and only those over 110 really contribute. So the number of people who are contributors to social progress is lower than in Europe.

3. Standards of cleanliness in Europe, particularly in England were lower historically. This encouraged disease and lowered population. In turn this allowed higher calorie intakes for the survivors. In contrast, people in China survived but ended up on lower calorie intakes.

This is a bit like the way calorie intakes in Africa now are lower than 10 years ago - in this case it is due to vaccination etc allowing people of more marginal health to survive.

>lower than 10 years ago
lower than *100* years ago

Re point 1 similar issues with the Roman Empire at times.

If east asians are lower IQ than europe, then how come they have higher IQ than europe?

If east asians have lower standard of deviation than europe, then how come they have higher standard of deviation than europe?

Is Veeky Forums just /pol/ now?

IQ has been determined to be both accurate and precise by psychometricians
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity
>How good would a "athletics quotient" be if one of the design constraints was that men and women should get equal average scores?
false equivalence.
IQ tests are only accurate if they're culture unbiased, which most of them are. Raven's progressive matrices is an IQ test that doesn't even involve language, an alien could take the test and it would be accurate.

Iron age europe was still shit and that's why archeologists divide iron age europe into pre-roman and post-roman influences, because of how shockingly different the cultures were. Until the romans spread civilized society to most of europe, it was a shithole and basically indistinguishable from ironworking african tribes that existed north of the sahara.

technological success is more resource based than intelligence based. ie: china, japan, korea.

>This encouraged disease and lowered population. In turn this allowed higher calorie intakes for the survivors.
Why would the survivors of an epidemic have higher caloric intake? If all your farmers die, you don't have anyone to tend the fields, you fucking rube. Specialization can only be achieved with significant surplus of food, which isn't helped by disease ravaging the peasant population, for what I think are obvious reasons.

>IQ range in China is lower than in Europe
gonna need a source on that one, pal

>The geography of China meant it could be ruled as a single empire. This led to monoculture and the failure to allow divergent views.
even though the entire history of china is revolution after revolution, including the bloodiest internal conflicts in human history.

Underrated post

>East invents things
>after several centuries West improves on them
>HUH, WHY ARE WE SO MUCH BETTER?

His post said at different periods different regions were superior. You're confirming everything he said but implying he's wrong.

Asians are smarter. The top 3 highest geniuses in the world are Asian. But Europeans are proficient in different areas.

In few more decades, that wont be relevant anymore. Even if the chinks are producing fake science papers at 90% rate, their 10% will simply outnumber the European scientific papers.

I heard asian population, while having a higher average IQ, have a lower variance than whites, meaning less retards, but also less geniuses.
I don't know how true this is.

Where are the proofs though

These "cultural accomplishments and racial achievements" threads are one of the worst thinly veiled /pol/ threads here

>you are now aware there is no difference between hard labor forced on you by the government and hard labor forced on you by circumstance

tick tock wagie

>you are now aware there is no difference between hard labor forced on you by the government and hard labor forced on you by circumstance
lesser evil and what not, life sucks dick but to keep a society running you need people to work, capitalism harnesses that in a semi-humane way.

>It's almost that intelligence isn't the objective measure of a population

Conservatism is relative, dipshit

No.

But I doubt any of the pol-fags who realize Asians (and Ashkenazi jews, incidentally) having higher IQs than whites is quite damning to their ideology, will be able to really get useful responses from the rest of /pol/.

This contradiction is borne from faulty reading of the IQ data. Basically reading the IQ data with a political agenda and not really objectively. Trying to cut history into white and Asian periods or moving intelligence away from IQ and involving creativity is them struggling with the very natural contradiction that arises. Moving away from numbers and going into geography or history only dilutes the conversation.

There is a solution though.

no one complains about asians, you fucking idiot. your whole argument is a strawman about whites being a master race and everyone else being shit. too bad for you, that's not the argument being made.

because they got nuked

Oh, but very often when people are confronted with the IQ data they make the creativity argument in favor of whites, or asking what OP asked, completely and utterly undermining IQ data and genetics. You are wrong in thinking that there aren't a lot of confused people, who cling on.

Also I am perfectly aware of the new argument being made.
Currently we're at a 'self-determination' stage, ethno-states, ethnic homogeneity.
The issue is very simple, and why this new compromise-argument breaks down.

It does not value intelligence as an ultimate measure of merit. It will not survive impact with real life.

Most Asian countries are socialist.

Asians just don't innovate.

They can copy well, though.

>2013
>600
sheit

they must be over 9000 by now

This is why I fucking hate when people romanticize the Mongols. They were a bunch of worthless shitheads who only understood how to destroy, not how to create anything.

I've heard East Asian populations were heavily bottlenecked for a period and are thus very genetically similar (compared to other continental populations). This could yield poor genetic variance and thus a constrained set of traits or personalities, which would hurt creative and collaborative work (the basis of innovation). Just a thought.

We know they weren't entirely limited by the environment since they were still innovating stuff on their own before Europe took off.

...

Maybe Europe had the best balance of genetic diversity + raw intelligence? For one, there was a lot more ethnonationalist rivalry pushing innovation and expansion there.

that's because OP is a troll, and you're some insecure baited faggot.

Because the chinese had high quality chinaware and didn't drink any wine there wasn't a need for them to develop glass, so they didn't discover lenses, which limited them in terms of astronomy and biology. Here the invention of the micro/telescope ultimately resulted in the discovery of modern science, in combination with greek math.

The chinese came close to discovering the pythagorean theorem at least once, but they never followed through.

tl;dr ironically the chinese sophisitication was one thing that prevented them from developing further. Having said that, the flaws of greek religion for instance contributed to the development of critical thought and logic.

Then explain this trollHow can you lie to yourself like this? Or is it confirmation bias that you literally can't see posts you don't like in this very thread?

Go ahead argue with him, tell him he's wrong and troll-tier. Tell him Asians are actually the smartest and whites aren't a master race.

Ideology is hell of a drug.

>Maybe
:^)

Whatever speculation makes you feel good, let that be the truth.

I'll stick to the facts, myself.

because intelligence isn't a fucking number.

OSTENSIBLY asians are "smarter", if you go on their almost certainly cheating test scores.

realistically, assuming that they're as smart as they say they are, they're extremely traditional and submissive. they're very group oriented.

> created the modern state of Mongolia

but any ways. I think they're cool because they're probably the greatest army of all time.
Smashing the two greatest empires of the time, the Khwarezmian Empire and eventually the Song Dynasty.

Pic related. The largest empire of all time

>Speculation

I'm going off of empirical evidence. Like the fact that a smaller population of people on the other side of the world dominated the entire planet while Asians were content to sit in their shitty little paddies and fight each other ad infinitum.

Colonial age is empirical evidence.
It is not, however empirical evidence that white kids are brighter than Asian kids. Empirical evidence to that effect are test scores, IQ scores all kinds of other scores, excluding verbal where there is equity. If you remove verbal the picture looks even worse for a white kid, statistically speaking.

Your historical argument can be chalked down to other factors than intelligence and is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. Also, as you know, depending on when in history you make it different races turn up superior - which suggests other things are involved. Yours is a counter-argument, but it simply doesn't hold, as I can ask you what were white people (aside from meds at certain times) doing all the time before the Colonial times? Faced with this inconvenient question your hypothesis blows up.

There is NO genetic evidence whites are superior to Asians, but there is to the contrary.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/
Secondary source is an "alt-right" website.

And, yes, it all fits the psychometric data.

I understand that they demonstrate higher IQ and standardized testing scoring ability. I am addressing why there is a gap in terms of Asian innovation relative to European innovation when Asians are demonstrably "smarter" (in the IQ and processing sense), as well as far more numerous, and yet have lagged in recent history and are still doing so. With numbers, as well as higher IQ, they should be blowing white Europeans away. So there must be other factors. I suggested lower genetic variance which may affect diversity of personality/character traits as well as lower ethnonationalistic rivalry which usually drives a higher impetus to innovate technology and expand outward (overseas).

You just keep shitting all over the place and posting IQ graphs over and over again like it means anything at this point in the discussion. This entire thread was started off the premise that, yes, Asians have higher IQs. Thank you for sharing faggot.

Asians are more innovative.
Who made anime? o right

I appreciate the valid push-back

>in recent history
The answer is recent world politics.
They were 'blowing Euros away', throughout history.

Your suggestion of lower genetic variance => fewer personality types has no basis in evidence. I think I already addressed this.

Studies have been conducted, people have measured IQ correlating with ALL kinds of intelligence(through g-factor), this includes being creative (and otherwise artful).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

For your argument to make sense you'd have to see Chinese constantly lagging behind Euros, which simply isn't the case throughout history. And no, you have no reason to only look at recent history.

I agree with you that "IQ/genetics isn't the only factor". There's geography, political situation (mongols for example), communism, discovery of the gun, having constant competition in terms of military(as was the case in Europe).

Those are all factors that influence.

I feel naked not posting a chart, so I'll post an AGW related picture. Not to make a point, but because it looks nice. I think it's Killimahnjaroh.

They isolated themselves. They were better than anyone until they did the whole isolation thing. then someone showed up in their harbor with a boat load of whip-ass and they revised their policies.

alexander the great's empire was the greatest empire and army of all time. they conquered every known empire in the old world, and they frequently won battles while they were outnumbered. the mongols almost always had matched strength or a numerical advantage. alexander the great also predated them by over 1500 years.

mongols were nothing more than thieving and murdering gypsy niggers.

>They were 'blowing Euros away', throughout history.

Were they really though? How did this start completely lose momentum and fall flat?

>Your suggestion of lower genetic variance => fewer personality types has no basis in evidence. I think I already addressed this.

All I've seen is a genetic variance map that still showed greater genetic diversity in Europe (especially population centers). You can also google studies that show lower genetic variance in East Asian populations.

I guess the argument is how much would environment or genetic diversity play a role in their different fates.

>How did this start completely lose momentum
Bad policies. Focusing on philosophy, literature and art instead of science. Isolation. Mongols.

You have to show the correlation between lower genetic variance and outcome. There is far more evidence to suggest IQ outweighs genetic variance in terms of importance.

Also you have to show why genetic diversity (ie different alleles or alleles frequencies) on genes unrelated to intelligence would imply for performance - this is the main portion of diversity out there. Good luck with that assignment - it's hard.

0/10 b8

>push-back
Intentionally misinterpreting, I see.

what ? why would asians be more intelligent on average ? is that from a IQ test chart or smthing ?
and yet I still don't see the link between what you call intelligence and technological development..
Do you think average american is smarter than average -insert country habitant here- ?

By intuition I'd say development rate of a country is mainly linked with the freedom that people have in this country, allowing trying weird stuffs that finally are discovered better than previous solutions.
And I would simply think about the middle agesand obscurantism for an example of why nations may or may not evolve.

This. They're basically Trumpfags.

>Trumpfags are smart
No they're not you retarded neo-Nazi.