How can we explain the disproportionate amount of mathematics and science contributions by white men? I can think of a two reasons for the discrepancy:
1. White men happened to occupy powerful and privileged positions which enabled academic pursuits.
2. My American education is biased in crediting the achievements of white men.
What does /sci think? No racist bullshit
Other urls found in this thread:
scholar.google.com.br
twitter.com
During the scientific revolution, Europe had colonized most of the known world leading them to be an unprecedented global superpower.
>But why did these countries got colonized
A mixture of things really. There could be some racist factor, but it would be naive to reduce everything to different intelligences.
>What does /sci think? No racist bullshit
Here's your (you). Now leave.
>A mixture of things really
aka theyre inferiour
The answer is pretty simple, prosperous and rich countries and people have free time to devote to all sorts of scientific/philosophical/mathematical advancement. Education is also a major factor because it is more likely that an educated person will aim for higher education than an uneducated one.
>no racism
all of these things play a roll, but to say that racial differences don't play a role is crazy talk.
Any individual can fall anywhere on the distribution, so prejudice is illogical.
All that being said, race itself does contribute.
What about mesoamerican communitues? India and east Asian countries?
So some Africans invented a steam engine but the evil education industry covered it all up? Do you honestly think that truly privileged people do things to attack their own privilege?
You need to understand three things that, right now, you are choosing to not comprehend out of pseudo-religious self-righteousness:
1) Invention is disruption.
2) Disruption is (or is near) the ultimate evil for most cultures. Chinese chose "harmony" even after encountering Europeans with objectively superior weapons. Nobody says that Chinese people are stupid.
3) Historical Europe never developed the sort of high centralization and totalitarianism that characterized almost all other governments. Freedom and science are mushrooms that nobody planted, but which accidentally grew in the shade provided by the lack of a village-exterminating Chinese-style nightmare state. Europeans probably got a head start on innovation, not from privilege, but from poverty, at the individual level because their disruptions would be tolerated or rewarded, and at the continental level because of the winter.
Henry Ford has been born a million times in China. Every time, he either looked around and kept his mouth shut, or was identified as a threat to "harmony" and eliminated.
The closest historical Europe came to Chinese centralization was Rome. Know what Rome did with plans for inventions that would dramatically save labor and so put slaves out of business?
the ancestors of white people got gud first
doesn't imply anything beyond that
there's no superiority or inferiority
And it's not like they did it completely without help
it was a different time
>But why did these countries got colonized
Mongols kicked us in the ass, demolishing our enemies but not us.
discovery of the americas probably secured it
But Jews have more ratio of Nobel Prize winners than any other race.
1. Exactly.
Africans for example lived in a warm, dry climate since birth of humanity. Then they moved on to colder enviroments and had to adapt to harder conditions and more problem-solving, so only the most intelligent africans lived. The melanin of their skin adapted to the colder climate, this lighter skin. And occasionally mated with neanderthals who also descended from Africa.
Now that africans became white africans, and due to their forced nature of "most intelligent lives on" they became superior in solving things, and such mathematics became a thing of importance. You are basically migrated africans.
Most other places were not concerned with problem-solving as much as they were with hunting and living. White men were bored peasants concerned with God and the truth about life. So I wonder...
This is pretty dumb, it's like asking "Why do pure math university students learn more about math and contribute more than people who dropped out of college to make a living in gas station, have no interest in math, work to help their families and/or couldn't afford college?
Hi Veeky Forums, 4th year undergrad geneticist here. I've a few questions about human biodiversity, wanted to ask some questions.
1. Is it fair to say that polygenic traits such as height, body shape, muscle distribution and body conformation can assort by geographic/temporal cohorts/populations that many call race?
2. If 1 is true, is there any substantial reason why IQ, which is seen as a polygenic trait that may or may not be highly heritable, eould also not assort itself like this?
3. What is the mean heterozygosity of humans? I've seen numbers between 0.77 and 0.002 heterozygosity.
4. Could epigenetics account for differences between populations due to different environments? I am aware epigenetics is a contested field but so far it is the best answer I have found for why polygenic traits may differ between populations over time?
Any input or direction would be helpful.
Same answer to the question;
>Why are all these COD players so much better than me when I just got the game for Christmas and they got it when it came out 2 months ago?
Answer to Q1-Q4 pic related why would IQ be any different? Especially if nutrition plays any part in brain development.
What paper is this graph from and is this evidence towards my belief thst polygenic traits can assort by population?
It has been difficult to study human biodiversity due to the sheer number of papers that support/reject it. Finding objective sources of information is hard.
rome didnt actually target those plans. they just werent needed because slaves were cheaper.
are you retarded?
>no racist bullshit
so you cannot even consider a simplier explaination just that a competence of certain groups is a factor instead you create a conspiratorial narrative?
>never attribute to malice something that can equally be explained by stupidity
>The source is Michael P. Todaro & Stephen C. Smith (2011) – Economic Development, 11th Edition. The Pearson Series in Economics.
>The original source is Strauss & Thomas (1998) “Health, nutrition, and economic development,” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (1998): 766–817.
From random blog that cited it.
We can not do anything to stop black people from thinking
ergo.
them not thinking is not due to our efforts.
So you think its fair to agree that low diet leads to an epigenetic effect that will, over time, become a genetic effect of poor growth?
But they kicked Europe. Twice! (They even were nice enough to demolish the Islamic world a bit on the way, the Russians, Eastern Europe, ...)
You haven't accomplished anything, stop trying to act like you were a part of the innovations these men made.
You weren't, it reeks of insecurity.
Sorry i will rephrase it.
I can not do anything to stop black people from thinking
ergo
them not thinking is due to my efforts
>Believes in evolution
>Doesn't believe evolution affected the human brain at all for the last 200000 years.
Facts aren't "racist."
>Thinks that IQ tests measure intelligence while controlling for societal pressures.
Racists aren't using facts.
USA is still prosperous, but US born citizens dont have rep for being a smart bunch.
Just sayin, prosperity aint all.
Most jews look pretty white.
kys
Guns, Germs, and Steel
you have no idea how many nazis fled the failing third reich to the US claiming to be jews so they wont get hunted.
Also there is not just 1 group of jews. there is several ones. Like there is african christians as well as scandinavian ones.
Being Jew is a religion/lifestyle not an ethnicity. The jews that contributed to society were living in western countries or in countries that were influenced by western society.
Jews are white by any consistent definition, the only time they're designated anything else to fulfill some political motive. I can't imagine how someone could convince themselves Jews aren't considered white, do they think there's a separate 'jewish' category in the race section that jews get despite he fact that even fucking arabs get lumped in with whites?
>Being Jew is a religion/lifestyle not an ethnicity
you don't belong in this board
scholar.google.com.br
I'm not at all qualified in biology but I can say that i'm pretty sure a big difference between intelligence and the other traits you mentioned is that intelligence can't be measured objectively, since it isn't a physical feature of a person.
Moron, did you not notice the 'Ashkenazi' part added? That's because the other user was correct, there are multiple different ethnic groups considered jews. Also a general trend among a population doesn't mean they are completely monolithic.
Iodine deficiency is very detrimental to growth.
You really can't stop jerking yourself off.
>How can we explain the disproportionate amount of mathematics and science contributions by white men?
It was mostly a byproduct of a centralized infrastructure where before the internet and global economy there wasn't enough resources (or interest in many cases) to always investigate academia in other countries. You had a few people who would go to other countries to study the culture and translate some information but nothing to the extent we have now. If you actually check the history of academia in other countries and cross check it with Europe you would often times find a lot of redundant and overlapping information indicating certain mathematical and scientific principals were discovered multiple times independently of each other.
The core issue lies mostly with documents and publications. Whites just documented more information and rather than waste time and resources to redo the experiments other countries just cite those papers and move on from there. Although there were some exceptions where certain demographics were barred in America from having/owning copy right protection thus discouraging interest in research and development.
Also the book burnings in ancient China, destruction of the library of Alexandria in Egypt and poor preservation of manuscripts of Timbuktu contributes to said disparity by making older academia texts in Europe the more cited and reference by default since they still exist.
>centralized infrastructure where before the internet and global economy there wasn't enough resources (or interest in many cases) to always investigate academia in other countries.
So then how did Europeans developed the centralized infrastructure, and why did Europeans be more successful then other groups that also had "centralized infrastructure". In fact, how do you even define "centralized infrastructure".
>You had a few people who would go to other countries to study the culture and translate some information but nothing to the extent we have now. If you actually check the history of academia in other countries and cross check it with Europe you would often times find a lot of redundant and overlapping information indicating certain mathematical and scientific principals were discovered multiple times independently of each other.
Why were they different from Europeans in this regards.
>Also the book burnings in ancient China, destruction of the library of Alexandria in Egypt and poor preservation of manuscripts of Timbuktu contributes to said disparity by making older academia texts in Europe the more cited and reference by default since they still exist.
But these things happened in Europe too. Its why Europe before 1500s was not an exceptionally special place. So then how come 1500s Europe was able to deal with this handicap and suddenly started dominating the world?
More importantly, why was it WESTERN Europeans who did most of this accomplishment (anything east of Germany didn't really contribute much in comparison). And why is it that a persecuted and hated minority of Ashkenazi Jews was it that made tons of scientific discoveries?
I'll tell you why, because the real reason is genetic differences between populations leading to behavioral differences.
Its genetic, and unlike OP lame unfalsifable white hating bullshit leftspeak, this hypothesis is actually testable.
>I'll tell you why, because the real reason is genetic differences between populations leading to behavioral differences.
I was going to actually respond to your post seriously until this statement. Unlike the other anons on this thread I'm not going to waste my time on this topic if you're going to try to boil all the nuances of the history, proliferation and dispersal of academic research into genetics to which you clearly already have mind made up on.
I'm out, here's your (you) and enjoy your thread.
History of Europe extends all the way back to the first records. If we choose to define "Europe" has our smallest piece, this centralization predates the Greeks. The "world" domination goes back to Rome, not the 1500s. Clearly you have genetic markers of a sub-hominid.
Read history, don't take history classes.
Whites simply have better genes
>jews
>white
Ashkenazi are measurably better. It is genetic, you can continue to make up excuses but lets apply occams razor and reach the most obvious conclusion.