Thread 17958174

>>17958174 (OP)
it just boils down to favourable geography in that from Europe one has easy access to four continents. further right across the Atlantic eastern North America had favourable climate and geography to settle in.

>>17958178
this is probably the most retarded thing i've ever heard

>>17958174 (OP)
Their fractured state, constant competition and warfare meant no decadent decay as what the Chinese faced and being surrounded by sea meant that they had access to any market in the world which allowed new inventions to flow in and be refined as we saw with gunpowder

>>17958174 (OP)
so just Britain

>>17958174 (OP)
It's not europeans that are OP but races like native americans, africans and to a lesser extent some east eurasians that are just... subpar. Couple the fact that the british had access to gunpower and you can have a map like that
The only people worth anything are in eurasia, and that's precisely why the best and most memorable empires are the ancient ones, like Rome, Hellenistic greece, China, Mongolia etc...
They actually defeated people in high stakes wars

"the indomitable human spirit"
then they got bored
that's it really

>>17958174 (OP)
Belief in Jesus Christ. Other places like China, India, and Turkey had huge empires, treasuries, ships, guns, and soldiers as well. But belief in Jesus made Europe successful. Belief in Jesus gave Gil Eanes the courage to pass the impassible Cape Bojador. Belief in Jesus gave Columbus the strength to continue to the Indies when much of his crew simply wished to turn back. Belief in Jesus gave Cortez the gumption to burn his own fleet and strike inland into Mexico with only a handful of men. Belief in Jesus gave da Gama, Almeida, and Albuquerque the courage to win battles on the other side of the earth. Belief in Jesus gave St. Francis Xavier the zeal to learn, then preach in Japanese in a place no European had been until just 6 years before.

The British East India Company was first based at Fort St. George in Madras, the same city as the tomb of the Apostle St. Thomas. Their flag was the Cross of St. George, which was later combined with the Cross of St. Andrew and the Cross of St. Patrick to form the Union Jack.

>>17958174 (OP)
Their will to power, the faustian spirit if you will
This isn't to say they were neither right nor wrong in doing so, it brought along many deaths but it also brought along many advancements

Imagine then if they kept to themselves and not wander the seas, the world would still turn

the heavy plow and Mediterranean in short

China and India may have had larger populations, but they were mostly inland peasants packed together in agriculturally rich regions living off grain, Europe and the Med however were spread out with access to different resources and connected by sea trade, which they could bring to manufacturing and trade centers, and it was a huge area connected by the time of the high middle ages when cogs regularly transported wine and venetian glass to the north sea and the Hanseatic league could furnish Flemish metallurgists with Russian timber and low impurity iron ore from Scandinavia.

This beehive of activity outpaced other cultures. An Indian or Chinese merchant could hug the coast a bit and bring materials to the mouths of major rivers, but it was never on the scale of what was happening in Europe. Italy reclaimed its position as the center of Mediterranean trade and here the renaissance began, soon the Dutch renaissance began at the mouth of the Rhine and said agriculturally rich regions took off with manufacturing.

Reddit says the Romans never had an industrial revolution because of slavery, but the opposite is true, it requires a lot of labor and the more labor the higher the economy of scale and efficiency and in turn the widespread manufacturing of things that would otherwise have been limited and unprofitable. All the time artisans and businesses sought ways to improve efficiency with all these resources at their disposal triggering the positive feedback loop between economic growth and investment in technology.

>>17958174 (OP)
Western/Faustian Medieval civilization, Roman foundations, and the fact that Europe/Western Eurasia has some of the most stressful geography ever putting everyone in a constant Darwinian death struggle (which is what spurred colonialism more than anything)

>>17958174 (OP)
they put their heart to it

>>17958384
living of RICE you mean

The short answer is that their economies relied on it
The long answer is that resource extraction and bulwark territory were necessary in order to maintain a higher standard of living for peasants in the empire in order to avoid revolt against their respective monarchs. It was in the best interest of those in power to sell colonialism to the average peasant, and it was in the peasantries best interest to carry it out for the promise of social mobility (being able to become landed gentry in the new world) and stability for their livelihoods in the future
As colonial territories expanded, so to did the cost of maintaining their empires (remember the whole bread and circuses thing I mentioned earlier?) which drove further conquest and military expeditionism and it was a snowball effect.
Why didn't other culture experience similar snowball effects? Because Europe was unique in that its population density was relatively high do to its mountainous and forested geography, which forced nations into relative isolation leading to limited resources, consolidated wealth, and a highly competitive environment between kingdoms

>>17958444
>grain
>a seed or seeds from a plant, especially a plant like a grass such as rice or wheat

>>17958174 (OP)
>Liberia, a nation created by the United States and made as a replica of the United States
>Japan, occupied
First was influenced, second was directly controlled by Anglo-Saxons. Might as well consider them European influenced.

>>17958178
If this were the primary factor the Native Americans would've colonized Europe since the United States is undeniably the most geographically favored nation on the planet.

>>17958473
are you gonna tell me tomato is a fruit next?

>>17958174 (OP)
The short version is that it was a process of acquiring, preserving and improving knowledge which started in ancient times. This was made possible due to their suitable location right next to the near east, one of the cradles of humanity The near east also served as a bridge to the other cradle, China, via the silk road as well as through the Mongols.

The long version is honestly far too long. I spent the last hour trying to write it but I hit the word limit and no one will read the entire thing anyway.
I will just say that once Europeans acquired knowledge from the east through the Mongols and Arabs about gunpowder, they became destined to rule the world. They improved the firearms and then it was just a matter of reaching new lands to exploit with this advantage through sailing technology developed by the Portuguese and further improved by the other colonial powers.
A good climate and terrain for agriculture wasn't even that influential. The Portuguese became a colonial power because most of the population moved to the coastal areas after the bulbonic plague since it offered more economical opportunities than agricultural lands.

>>17958174 (OP)
Animal diseases, I understand. They're our greatest inheritance from our Aryan ancestors.

>>17958174 (OP)
Superior White genes.

>>17958174 (OP)
guns, germs and steel

>>17958174 (OP)
>iran and afghanistan in yellow
weren't they under macedonian rule?

>>17958174 (OP)
Very easy access to North America which meant that you could easily create America and then get protected by america as a lackey of the united states

>>17958174 (OP)
Maritime expansion + technological superiority. You can easily see that in the two stages of colonialism: first with the age of exploration in which they conquered mostly stone age Amerindians (the Aztecs and Incas were a bit more advanced but their states had critical flaws so the whole structure came down under pressure), then later with the industrial revolution in which they decided to go ahead and take over everyone else because now they were capable of beating not just fairly primitive peoples but also more organized states with numerous populations.
They had three big incentives to expand: monarchs who love expanding their domain through conquest, a religion that is strongly into proselytizing (see how Muslims also spread around conquering a very large are under this incentive even without industry), and later in the industrial age a newly formed wealthy class interested in making a profit hence shit like the Indies Companies etc.
>but why did they get that technological edge
During the age of exploration, it wasn't that big. During the industrial age though it came as a consequence of the Enlightenment and a culture that incentivized progress and the advancement of knowledge.

>>17958174 (OP)
their understanding of power. little timmy cuckboy thinks there's no point of power if you don't abuse it on other countries, expansion, militarism etc
the most fucking pretentious barbarians on the planet, they chimped out harder than mongols did yet they have the gall to say they're civilized and different

>>17958323
fucking kys you're everything thats wrong with the world

What if the plague just killed the most retarded Europeans who were too stupid to clean where they lived as to not attract rats?

>>17958174 (OP)
Ships with guns = mobile fortress

>>17958174 (OP)
Europe was having a scientific revolution while getting wealthy from a continent full of stone age people it will always just be one of the most iconic eras in human history.

>>17958174 (OP)
this map is stupid east russia was colonized and korea and japan had european influence
also to be a bigger faggot iceland had natives and uhhh the nords too

>>17958384
Chinese leadership actually prevented Chinese doing just this at times.

>>17958174 (OP)
Europeans were slinging shit at each other for centuries. Especially the west ones. They killed each other so many times they got really good at it. The migrations to other country's actually started with whites trying to get away from other whites. Partly due to draconian law and partly just to get rich. They try to make it seem like it was all a planned sophistication thing.

>>17958174 (OP)
>a third of asia is europe

>>17958174 (OP)
>What made Europeans so OP
"Spirit"

Why is Ethiopia green but Iran is yellow?

>>17958174 (OP)
>MARCH OF THE TITANS
kek

>>17959598
part 2

>>17958174 (OP)
Christianity.

>>17959599
part 3

>>17958489
only if you tell me it's a vegetable

>>17958174 (OP)
Geography. Diamond wrote a whole book about it

>>17959318
Reddit and Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs and Steel" would claim an emperor randomly shut down trade and that was it, but the real world is more complicated. The sea ban was lightly enforced and China ended up with colonies across south east asia anyway so it didn't seem to have much effect and there were other factors at play.

>>17959632
The irony is reddit favorite Jared Diamond rejects geography when it becomes inconvenient, pinning everything on China's centralization.

>But in China there was a difference, because the
>entire region was politically unified. One decision stopped fleets over the
>whole of China. That one temporary decision became irreversible, because
>no shipyards remained to turn out ships that would prove the folly of that
>temporary decision, and to serve as a focus for rebuilding other shipyards.

The central premise that geography is an overwhelming factor is true, but then he fails to actually prove it and that wasn't his idea.

>>17958174 (OP)
Race.

>>17959632
Ignores race differences in IQ. Ignores race differences in brain size. Ignores that variation in intelligence is mostly heritable.

>>17958323
underrated comment, when you read the stuff from the period these people are in it really comes through

>>17959687
Ignore easy access to the united states of america to transform them into a protector

>>17959632
Really don't know why we still talk about Diamond in /his/ anymore when all of history academia already moved on from his work. It has already been discredited numerous times. Though it is a good beginner on thinking about why there was such a great divergence in power between Europe and the rest of the world, I'd rather see some new names like Geoffrey Parker or something.

>>17958479
Right, but they also lived in isolation and didn't have the same access to river valleys, domesticable animal species, crops, or technological knowledge passed around by other nearby civs like written language, the wheel, or metalworking (all of which were really rare to come across relatively speaking) like the euros did.

>>17958252
>It's not europeans that are OP but races like native americans, africans and to a lesser extent some east eurasians that are just... subpar.
I think it's the former if they were the only ones to ever become industrialized. And even still a lot of Europe's development is due to a lot of luck and selective pressures, same with other cultures.

>>17959632
Diamond is a kike and geographical determinism is BS.

>>17958459
Industrialization preceded colonization.

>>17959702
Another aspect is that through Jesus the European peoples have a more compelling vision of human society and human social relations. The Portuguese in Asia are regularly calling up native allies to fight alongside them against enemies, allies who often outnumbered the Portuguese themselves by 10 or 20 times. The Portuguese ships that sailed to Japan regularly carried crews of Africans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Malay, Indonesians, and Chinese. Cooperative multiracial teams require an overarching vision to keep people together and smooth over the regular friction between people. Also just reading about the Portuguese in Asia I came to realize how ridiculously charismatic their leadership style was. Several Portuguese captains regularly maintained retainer groups of Japanese samurai who had left their homeland following the Anti-Christian Tokugawa persecutions of 1614. There's also the cases like in Thailand where some Portuguese settled among the native Thai, learned Thai, lived by Thai laws and married Thai wives.

Part of what makes an empire work is the ability to leverage the powers and abilities of local peoples. Europeans are better at that because they're genuinely nicer people as a result of Christianity. It's worth noting that this long predates the advantages of industrialization, numbers and technological achievement. When the Portuguese arrived in India, Java, China, and Japan there was little to no European advantage in technology.

>>17958174 (OP)
Russia isn't european
It gave birth to Europeans but it's its own thing

>>17958174 (OP)
Why almost all great ancient civilizations developed in the mediterranean sea or close to it like the mesopotamian ones? Because the mediterranean was an easy and quick way to connect those places so there was more connection between people.

Then I would add that more people were close in a smaller land. Not like Africa or America were there were less people in more land. That means constant wars and development of weapons,

>>17960834
all animals are domesticable retard

Warlikeness, and a just balance between scarcity and abundance seasonally

See it like a metabolism or a broader biological cycle.
The races that go through more celular cycles have gone throuh more deaths and lifes

They have selected, they have strived, and they are now radiating
A cell that went through many celular cycles has already gone through diversification, bottlenecks and natural selection.

Civilizations that never die and reborn. Or that live too long, become rotting and half rotting corpses.
See india

Imagine a god of sky that after conquering the earth mother, decayed in rot.
For he never died. But so forth is no longer alive

>>17958174 (OP)
having a continent wide empire 2k years ago. they've been exchanging ideas and improving ideas ever since

Solar posession unironically.


The sun is not just a planet.
The sun is also a god.
And when the gods posess men they begin imitating their characters.
The sun as a god is also the god of the eagle, the god of the light, the god of the golden. The god of the white

>>17958174 (OP)
Genetic purity, from Adam and Eve.
All the rest is contaminated with Satan's seed and all the other Beasts of the Field.

Which is proven by how the further we go from white to non-white, the less human they become.
The Japs, for example, are mostly Asian, but they have some white stuff in them from the Ancient Jomons. And thus, they have much more creativity and capability for honor, compassion, industry, etc.

Other East Asians are basically bug men. Humanoids with high mathematic IQ, but 0 of the other qualities mentioned above.

And Blacks and American Amerindians don't even have to be mentioned...

>>17961655
Faggot, stop posting these whores.
Adam and eve are jewish myths.
The whites descend from Europa, a phoenician princess that was captured in the orient, either anatolia or the levant
She was much like the earth mother.
And from Dyeus, the sky father.
His name so means bright sky, he is Diurnal dyeus. The whites look after their father, which is the god of the skies, and by being so, the vicar of Sun on earth.
Thats why they are bright.

>>17958174 (OP)
decentralization and competition (in an advanced society)

>>17958178
they are the center of the map

>too many cringe aggrandized answers

you shot and stole from people who couldn't shoot back like a school shooter

>>17958174 (OP)
Lmao, the other ones get out of it because they were colonized by somebody else.

Japan was the only truly independent country, and they're an american colony now.

>>17961700
Nah, Thailand.

>>17961655
It's 2025 and Europe is now irrelevant the only thing they hold on is their old reputation for industrializing the rest of the world while the East Asians inherit the earth sad what happened

>>17961775
As soon as Europe removes its jew shackles, we'll conquer the entire world once again, maybe except the US (which won't be necessary because their economy will crash and burn due to the gigantic debt).

>>17961939
make us pay it back
what timmy gon do?

>>17958174 (OP)
They had THIS waiting at home for them. Its the only place to make them. Beautiful women are an understated motivation behind the mechanism behind the conquering spirit. Races with less attractive women have less incentive to put their lives on the line.

>>17958178
Asia had acess to North Americaa across an ocea too
Across a pond even if you count the Bering strait.
Asians are the ones who settled America first (the so called "natives" are just asians)

>>17959367
>Europeans were slinging shit at each other for centuries. Especially the west ones. They killed each other so many times they got really good at it.

Subsaharans have been killing each others on a regular basis for thousands of years but they never really became good at it or invented new technologies in the process

>>17958174 (OP)
constant wars that fostered technology

>>17958323
>belief in jesus christ

They have belief in the GOLD they were about to steal lmao. How retarded can you get.

If they believed in Jesus they wouldn't be brutal violent invaders, rapers and slavers.

>>17958479
>>17958489
actual low IQ people over here

>>17958174 (OP)
We didn't get our shit kicked in by the Mongols right around the time gunpowder started being widespread like the rest of Eurasia. Then the Ottomans cucked Europe from trading through them which made Iberia create good boats.
It was GG from there.

>>17962212
Most everyone on earth had a love of gold. Incan gold, Aztec gold, African gold, European gold, Arabic gold, Indian gold, Chinese gold, and Japanese gold. Mansa Musa was known for his gold. Most everyone on earth had slaves. Incan slaves, Aztec slaves, African slaves, European slaves, Arab slaves, Indian slaves, Chinese slaves, and Japanese slaves. Mansa Musa was known for his slaves. In this respect the Europeans were no different than most everyone on earth. OP asked why the Europeans were so OP. I contend that the answer is Jesus. Most everyone the world over had slaves yet Europeans and Europeans alone came to the conclusion that it was a moral necessity to free their slaves. China and Japan lessened slavery through the economic conditions of population increase but just as easily drifted back into the practice as soon as it was economically viable again. Only Europeans came to believe in abolition as a result of the Divine Truth that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

>>17962338
Again they obviously didn't believe in jesus lmao

These people were killers, rapers and slavers

>>17958323
>imitators of Christ
>checks how the colonists treated native peoples

There were over 100 wars between 1400 and 1800 in Europe. Obviously, this forced European powers to get good at technology and finance.

>>17961964
>what timmy gon do?
Dump your currency into the toilet, causing massive hyperinflation in your country, which will create massive unrest and economic crisis.

>>17958174 (OP)
They were ready and eager to explore first, that's basically it.

>>17962545
There were way more than 100 wars in Subsaharan Africa in that same time period and it never result in them becoming good at technology or anything.

>>17962952
Sub Saharan Africa were a bunch of scattered stone age tribes with very low populations historically

>>17959310
If we are going to be really accurate, many more countries should be classified as partially under European control. In North America, numerous tribes like the Sioux, the Apache, Cree, Comanche, and Navajo were not conquered by a European power. In South America, the Mapuche, the Shuar, etc, resisted until well after the independence of their respective countries.

>>17962952
europe moved in large groups in the thousands, SSA moved in small tribes. it doesn't really make sense to compare the two

>>17958174 (OP)
They were explores from the very start. That implies drive or determination.

Bwcs

>>17962975
>>17963524
Civilizational advancement (science, technology...) is what allows population to grow, not the opposite.
As evidenced by how much Subsaharan population grew as soon as wypipo brought civilization to them in the last 150 years

>>17965144
I didn't say or suggest otherwise.

>>17958174 (OP)
Christianity nurturing the woman in the wilderness for 1260 years

>>17965415
BWC nurtured them.

>>17958174 (OP)
The Americas (and to a lesser extent Africa) were always going to be colonized. The combination of a lack of easily domesticable large animals native to your region strands you basically at the bottom of the tech tree until someone brings over cattle, horses, etc, to do the heavy lifting required for mass agriculture and labor. It also makes you insanely vulnerable to diseases (this is more mitigated in Africa.) Not to mention there's at least a 12,000 year head start before people even got to North America

The first Eurasians who got a foothold in the Americas was going to spread like wildfire and take over, and geographically the people who were best situated to get there and start colonies were Europeans. And once you take over the Americas, you have a massive resource tile to springboard off of and start taking over everyone else. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, is a good read on this topic, it basically goes over how stacked the deck was for anyone to colonize the Americas against the indians.

>>17958174 (OP)
Living on a cold northern latitude with abundant rain and wheat and at the end of the Eurasian superhighway of technology. The real question is why the higher IQ east Asians didn't mog them first, probably excessive political centralisation.

>>17961667
the Phoenicians were semites and actual, literal Caananites.

>>17965556
I never got the "Northern Latitude makes high IQ" bit, it falls apart so easily.
>Why are the indians low IQ when they evolved in Siberia/Canada, far colder than Europe?
>Why did civilization first arise in warmer climates like egypt and mesopotamia, where the modern IQ is near 80?
>Why was Europe never a cradle of civilization, or really have any large state later than like 500 BC?
>For that matter why did all indian civilization arise in mesoamerica, i.e hot as shit, and not the colder North America?
>Tierra del Fuego is comparative to Europe in temperature but only hunter-gatherers ever came from there too
It's too inconsistent to be a real answer.

>>17965568
Cold can't be a sufficient explanation, but it has to be a necessary one. Probably it had to be unlocked by the selective pressure of intensive agriculture with the technological imports of Eurasia, which Americans never had access to.
Unless you have an alternative hypothesis you end up with northern Europeans and east Asians at higher latitudes developing higher IQs just randomly for no reason at all.

>>17965583
>Cold can't be a sufficient explanation, but it has to be a necessary one.
That's not how that works anon. If a hypothesis can be proven false you don't say "well shit we don't have anything better"
>which Americans never had access to
Americans did have access to intensive agriculture, just not large animals. They were eating dogs and guinea pigs because that was the only meat they had
>Unless you have an alternative hypothesis you end up with northern Europeans and east Asians at higher latitudes developing higher IQs just randomly for no reason at all.
I have a theory but you're not going to like it

>>17965604
>I have a theory but you're not going to like it
not that anon, but lay it on me.

>>17965640
I was being facetious, I assume that that anon is a wignat or something. My theory is that IQ is not racial

>>17959687
retard

>>17965672
>My theory is that IQ is not racial
you would posit that human population clusters, which provably correspond to the traditional anthropological categories with almost 100% accuracy—i.e. the races—all have the exact same average IQ?
or possibly that they all have the exact same IQ distribution?

or are you specifically making an argument about IQ as a metric, rather than obliquely claiming you believing there are no racial differences in intellect?

>>17962212
>>17962386
>seething brownoid loser
KWAB

>>17965798
Without getting into the weeds about genetic analysis, you can define a population cluster literally anywhere, at any scale, to define a race. There is no genetic groupings of blacks, for example, that groups all blacks as one group, that excludes arabs, turks and the chinese from being white. Zoom in and there are 8 billion races, zoom out and we start arguing whether neanderthals are a race.

History is not a conflict of genetic clusters on a 21st century map, it's a conflict of ethnic groups, i.e tribes, which is non-standard and has been flexible in who it categorizes as what in each era. The white race arose out of Christendom, as a unifying super-group uniting the tribes indigenous to Europe who were unified in their religion, against the tribes unified under Islam and the invading pagans from the East. It did not meaningfully exist prior to this. It is a group of groups, like how polish and russians are both slavs but not the same type of slav.

Anyways, I'm not obliquely saying anything, I outright said that there are no racial differences in intellect. My assumption is that anon is a wignat who believes in it.

>>17965857
Europeans were not the only group to be afflicted by mass deaths from plague, so that's not the culprit, otherwise the blacks would have been the most intelligent owing to all the diseases native to SSA. There isn't really a condition that affected Europe that didn't affect a lot of other groups.

>>17965558

white people are given falsified backstories to account for their dishonorable existence as a glorified breed of livestock

cattle require context to function, so meme context is provided;
considering there is nothing authentic about these people

they are golem

>>17965870
>still seething

>>17965886
Technological improvements in agriculture (Such as the 8 ox heavy plow) and the medieval warm period allowed central Europe to be as agriculturally productive as bronze age Sumeria.
Europe is below average for agriculture. It took millennia for Europeans to cultivate cold tolerant crops and otherwise improve their production to produce enough food to maintain the professional classes that allow for scientific and technological advancement.
Even Rome's population was almost entirely fed by the surplus of North African provinces and many of their most notable scientists lived in Egypt such as Claudius Ptolemy. After losing grain shipments from North Africa the population of Rome collapsed to 5% of its peak.

>>17965798
>>17965861
There are racial differences in intellect based solely on history, viz. you can't learn something unless someone teaches it to you. Europeans are ahead of other races in that empirical sense, but it's not a comment on their individual capabilities. Everyone has to be brought up to speed on everything because we were all just born. It's a question of whether your culture has heretofore prepared itself to learn modernity quickly, or remained far behind. Your race and your culture's position in history is an immutable reality that can only take leaps and bounds with a strong leader imagining its future.

>>17965857
>Germanics used to be dumb savages not too long ago
well, please post your IQ data on Germanic tribes—otherwise you seem to be relying on their advancement as a civilisation—compared to say, Rome's—as a proxy for their intellect
I'm sure you can see how relying on civilisational advancement to infer intellect undermines your own point of there being no racial differences in IQ

>>17965861
>Without getting into the weeds about genetic analysis, you can define a population cluster literally anywhere, at any scale, to define a race.
one could do that, but we're specifically talking about traditional categories of race—i.e. the genetic polymorphisms which divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy, and which correspond to the traditional anthropological categories
>Walsh, A., Yun, I., "Race and Criminology in the Age of Genomic Science", Social Science Quarterly, (October 2011).

>I outright said that there are no racial differences in intellect.
well, no, you specifically said there were no differences in IQ...
...but why would you ever think that the principle of evolutionary adaptation ceased to apply above the neck?

we've identified genes which correlate with increased intellect—these genes inescapably occur either more or less frequently within a given human population cluster
we've measured ethnic differences in cerebral topology, and geometry, and neuronal density, and cranial capacity
that is, we happen to notice that some groups tend towards having bigger, denser, more connected brains, and carry with them more of the genes we've found to correlate with intellect

genetic variants associated with cognition DO exist
they ARE distributed unequally across human population clusters
the population clusters DO correspond to traditional racial categories

and so I'm sorry, but as uncomfortable and unfair as you may find it... intellect is invariably racial to a degree
let's not allow ideology to intrude on truth here

>>17966574
>correspond
no, they require the "traditional categories" if you remove the tradition, they don't exist. Race is nonsense without an element of past history.

>>17966581
your belief or disbelief in the validity of the racial categories is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of racial intellect
the fact remains, the literature shows that the traditional racial categories—existent prior to the discovery of DNA—did in actuality correspond to genetic reality

>>17966574
An IQ point here or there doesn't make much difference individually. I'd go further, the distribution probably exists for a reason -- high and lows are performing different roles in society. Shit, could that be the elites' plan? Exalt themselves by bringing in more underlings? I never thought of it that way. Back to race. It makes a great deal more difference what your culture and genetic memory of recent events in your culture have provided.

>>17966593
They actually did back then. I don't mind using words like "different species" or "genetic difference" because I understand what it implies and what it doesn't. YES people started to undergo speciation due to geographic isolation, now they're recombining. We didn't get that far apart, but eventually we would've become different. That doesn't mean one is superior to another, in the most objective sense only God knows which genes will win in the end. Only God knows what the real win condition is. If you're going to judge superiority at a given time, judge cultural spheres where that argument makes sense.

The other problem for your argument is IQ itself isn't that useful compared to other resources. A person with 80 IQ is still the smartest and most competent animal on earth, capable of all the important human tasks. Three people with 80 can hunt and kill one 130 by comparing three opinions and three sets of eyes. People can be different genetically and even different species while still being human for all intents and purposes. That's why they fight so hard to keep midwits from saying the species or IQ difference words, because to the average person those things signify good and bad.

>>17958174 (OP)
>be turkiyv
>be terror of europe for centuries
>when cornered fight for your freedom from european occupation
>partial european control of influence
>be nippon
>get nuked and occupied
>constitution rewritten
>never colonized
testament to the sheer amount of gaslighting jap pop culture lead to

>>17966616
Can you imagine if the Entente had nukes? I get chills.

>>17966623
alt history niggers deserve the rope

>>17966629
You mean like claiming Turkey wasn't and isn't occupied? Whoever made the map probably just looked at the turkoid maritime border.

>>17965568
>>Why did civilization first arise in warmer climates like egypt and mesopotamia, where the modern IQ is near 80?
Large concentrations of fertile land in one place

>Why was Europe never a cradle of civilization, or really have any large state later than like 500 BC?
See first point. Arable land in Europe spread out all over the place. No suitable spot for first civilizations to arise

>>For that matter why did all indian civilization arise in mesoamerica, i.e hot as shit, and not the colder North America?
Population density. The entire North American continent had lower population than Utah meanwhile South and Central Americas had tens of millions of people

>>Why are the indians low IQ when they evolved in Siberia/Canada, far colder than Europe?
Amerindians are like 90 IQ which isn't too bad on global standards. Also see pic

>Tierra del Fuego is comparative to Europe in temperature but only hunter-gatherers ever came from there too
probably low population density

>>17965672
>My theory is that IQ is not racial
Then why do races differ in their measured IQs?

>>17966574
"Traditional" anthropological definitions of race go back to the 18th century, long after the ethnogenesis of the white race as a supergroup. You could, if you wanted to, argue that every ethnic group, from Polish slavs to the Turks to the Germanics, could constitute their own race, and there would be near 100% genetic accurarcy, because they cluster too. There's no reason not to choose to define ethnicity as the basis of race if you are using genetic clustering, or individual clan groups for that matter really, since people of the same ethnicity in different cities/regions can also be seperated with near 100% accuracy. Are new york italians a seperate race to jersey italians? They can be clustered seperately.

>but why would you ever think that the principle of evolutionary adaptation ceased to apply above the neck?
They didn't, surely, but 1.) There's no reason to assume that there was even any reason for intelligence to varied as it does , as discussed in >>17965568. There are many ethnic groups which lived in the same way as Europeans that don't have comparable IQ.
2.) It doesn't appear to be the case, when you start cracking open skulls and look at genes, the "hardware" and "software" isn't that different between different races, but that's the weeds of the race/intelligence shitstorm. Suffice to say it is not born out in studies, because again, being able to see differences does not make the differences signficiant on the scale of intelligence.

>>17966639
Because they're a different race they axiomatically haven't had the same cultural experience per family as ours. The world changes one experience at at time, so you can educate one person here or there but it will never change the conditions that set up the current situation. You need mass cultural adoption to make a change across the board like that, and most cultures aren't motivated to change.

>>17966646
so why do different races have different cultures

>>17966632
>You mean like claiming Turkey wasn't occupied
It was occupied.By Napoleon, Russians, Entente.We preserved our independence. Japan didn't
>isn't occupied
Turkish irredentism in the year of our lord 2025?

>>17966636
>Large concentrations of fertile land in one place
Ukraine has some of the best soil in the world and a lot of it, and the best parts of the Med Sea are all in Europe. Egypy comparatively was tiny and basically just centered around the Nile.
>The entire North American continent had lower population than Utah meanwhile South and Central Americas had tens of millions of people
Okay but why? If cold climate forces intelligence to adapt, then the indians in North America should have been more intelligent than the southerners. By any metric, history, civilization, modern IQ, they're not.
>Amerindians are like 90 IQ which isn't too bad on global standards.
If you are using Euros and EAsians as a standard, and you believe that cold drives intelligence, they should be of comparable intelligence or greater since they faced the same drivers in harsher climates.
>probably low population density
WHY is the population density low?

>>17966649
The topography of everything is like a stream flowing across broken land, some parts move quickly and others eddy or pool into concentrated material. To the leaf bobbing along, it looks like there are wildly different expressions of water, but water is all the same. It's the stone underneath that shapes it. It's absurd to suggest native americans didn't build the Taj Mahal because they weren't intelligent enough, THAT isn't how genetics works, people have been approximately this intelligent for almost a million years. It's a question of how isolated they were from the great human overmind that was taking root in Eurasia.

>>17966613
>An IQ point here or there doesn't make much difference individually.
we're talking about national differences of up to 40 points, with the caveat that there is still contention about the precise influence of level of socioeconomic status and education on attainment—but that's a gap which is simply not going to be closed entirely by a standard Western education, given parental IQ exerts the strongest predictive effect
it's a significant difference

>That doesn't mean one is superior to another
I've not asserted any kind of racial superiority, so please don't turn this debate into some hellish quagmire of intersectionalist American Neomarxism
I'm solely interested in empirical truth at the level of groups, not judgement of individuals
>If you're going to judge superiority at a given time
I'm not
again, if you're bringing some kind of need to defend an ideological belief to bear, and I'll once again ask you to refrain from pigeonholing me, and assuming you understand my point-of-view

>The other problem for your argument is IQ itself isn't that useful compared to other resources.
this point seems entirely irrelevant to my argument—which is in fact a counter-argument against the point that "there are no racial differences in IQ"
I'll ask what bearing you imagine the fact that less intelligent groups can also hunt and kill has on the specific point we're discussing?
what you're saying about the supposed irrelevance of IQ could just as easily be levelled against the anon making the original "there are no racial differences in IQ" point—so why instead use it against the person trying to prove him wrong? I can't help but imagine it suggests a bias on your part

>>17958174 (OP)
having souls

>>17966636
I call bullshit on that pic considered the indians came over on a literal bridge of ice. There's no way the conditions they were in was less severe than that of most Europeans and lightyears worse than the Romans, the Brits, etc.

>>17966616
Japan was colonized by the US but the map is about European colonialism

>>17966673
Races don't exist, a "national" difference is of no interest. That makes nonsense of the whole thing. If you can eliminate that 40 IQ difference in a generation or two with culture, what did it really mean?

>>17958174 (OP)
Milk

>>17966673
>>17966687
sorry, they don't exist genetically. Race is culture plus history.

>>17966672
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

>>17966673
>a national difference of 40
There's a lot of contention around those numbers, mostly due to the guys who collected those numbers using bad methodology and no one else going in later. Suffice to say that the gap is not that big, although it does exist, mostly to the tune of a 15 point gap or so.
>that's a gap which is simply not going to be closed entirely by a standard Western education
The problem is that there are more conditions at play, even beyond the obvious of wealth, safety, run of the mill bullshit. Malnutrition in the child or in the mother, lead content, diseases in the regions, etc, which aren't even usually considered but correlate heavily with IQ. Lead exposure alone can have an impact on IQ decades down the line.

>>17966697
every mammal had a common ancestor, so how they get different? God?

>>17966649
Culture, which is interaction between people, and the past are the active ingredients in what we call race. You can go participate in other cultures but can't change where you came from. The same is true of entire races and nations, they can theoretically go anywhere from right now, they're only restricted by everything that led up to this. Unfortunately it's a big restriction.

>>17958174 (OP)
Every answer ITT other than "genetically high IQ" is wrong pseud coping bullshit.

>>17966825
and "genetically high IQ" is incoherent retardation

>>17966671
Ukraine may have more fertile soil overall but in Egypt and Iraq the soil is concentrate around rivers. That's what matters for first civilizations not an absolute amount in some arbitrary area.
I don't know if there are any good IQ data for North vs South native Americans. The latter are quite admixed by now so any measurement would be useless. The other stuff can be explained by low population.
North America is hardly colder than Europe or North Asia. It's in the same altitude as Morocco and Spain
Because there are volcanoes everywhere? It's not called land of fire for nothing

>>17966687
>Races don't exist, a "national" difference is of no interest.
somehow, you're failing to appreciate that those national differences ARE racial differences, given native majority populations fall invariably into traditional racial categories with almost 100% accuracy

>>17966695
sorry, as per the literature: the traditional racial categorisations adhere strictly to genetic reality
your 'culture plus history' definition is factually incorrect, given we're talking about population clusters ordered by genetic loci
if we can test scant few genetic locii, with these revealing population clusters which precisely adhere to the traditional categories, then it suggests there was indeed a then-unproven underlying scientific basis for the original system of racial categorisation, and that biological race can now provably be said to exist

>>17966709
>The problem is that there are more conditions at play, even beyond the obvious of wealth, safety, run of the mill bullshit. Malnutrition in the child or in the mother, lead content, diseases in the regions, etc, which aren't even usually considered but correlate heavily with IQ.
...as well as specific genetic variants associated with cognition, which we oughn't downplay in an attempt to reduce intellect down to the cliché of 'purely socioeconomic factors'

>>17966645
attempting to argue further subdivision is possible just seems like the employment of sophistry, given the discussion is of racial clustering
the reason to choose race here, is because that's what's being discussed—nobody is making reference to 'New York Italians' as a distinct race save you
we're talking about the traditional understanding of race
as to the precise mechanism why some races are more intelligent than others, I'll leave to others to discuss—I'm simply countering the notion that 'there are no differences in intellect along racial lines', which is absurd

>>17966869
Oh yeah, then how do you account for sharing of technology? Races should just achieve the tech level of their IQ level and that's that. It doesn't make sense that some could get ahead by working together, working what together? Genetic IQ is not cumulative.

>as per the literature
Literature you invented. I got some literature for you right here. This is a literary format.

>>17966878
>Literature you invented
incorrect

>"Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories."
>Walsh, A., Yun, I., "Race and Criminology in the Age of Genomic Science", Social Science Quarterly, (October 2011).

unless you're arguing that I'm one of the authors, in which case you'll have to take me at my word that I'm not

>>17966843
>in Egypt and Iraq the soil is concentrate around rivers.
Ukraine has the Dnipro river and much more black soil than either of those regions. That can't be the reason or else we would have gotten a Ukrainic civilization before the Egyptians, who had basically one river and a lot of desert.
>I don't know if there are any good IQ data for North vs South native Americans.
We know that hispanics have IQs around 90, close to indians, despite a lot of European admixture, which is yet another inconsistency with a race/intelligence hypothesis, and suggests IQ is driven primarily by something other than race
>The other stuff can be explained by low population.
WHY was it lowly populated anon?
>North America is hardly colder than Europe or North Asia.
The Americas cover basically every latitude and climate on Earth but the Indians specifically migrated from Siberia during one of the coldest epochs in history, across a bridge of ice, and inhabited the Canada before coming down. That's hundreds of thousand years in a region defined by being cold and harsh, colder and harsher than most of Europe. Surely at the least we would have seen Indians in lower Canada and the northeast US developing technology if it was just the cold driving intelligence, since those regions are climate wise similar to Europe
>Because there are volcanoes everywhere?
Volcanic soil tends to be very fertile, if anything there should have been more agriculture, not less

>>17966892
That just shows how malleable genetics are. The Jewish race for example, must have fluttered in and out of existence half a dozen times by now.

>>17958254
>"the indomitable human spirit"
... is not really human, in the universal sense, but was a very particular conjuncture in space and time, conditioned by a very special cultural and religious trajetory. It has been called the Faustian spirit, articulated by Oswald Spengler as the driving force behind the Occidental Civilisation that was born of the Germano-Roman encounter and shaped by Christianity.

>>17966843
>>17966897
All this is easily explained when you know that intelligence and consciousness are only possible through communication and refinement of multiple minds. Civilization started close to where the neolithic revolution happened because there were enough people to have sophisticated communication and therefore higher thoughts. Every word has millennia of development behind it, you can't come up with that shit on your own. Feral children aren't conscious the way we are.

>>17966905
you're completely misinformed as to what genetic clustering shows
you're arguing that testing ought to reveal the spontaneous popping into existence around the world of populations of racially Jewish people, with no actual Jewish lineage
...this is simply not the case
if somebody is revealed to be of a specific traditional anthropological racial category by the testing of the loci referenced by Walsh and Yun—it is through inheritance alone; shared ancestry

>>17966869
>we can test scant few genetic locii, with these revealing population clusters which precisely adhere to the traditional categories, then it suggests there was indeed a then-unproven underlying scientific basis for the original system of racial categorisation, and that biological race can now provably be said to exist
We can reveal approx. 8 billion genetic clusters, not accounting for twins or triplets, which can each be determined with near 100% accuracy and in fact is done every day in criminal investigation by police with access to gene testing technology and a database. Are there 8 billion individual races on Earth?
>which we oughn't downplay in an attempt to reduce intellect down to the cliché of 'purely socioeconomic factors'
Words like "purely" don't really describe the situation, the same way saying "we can distinquish between groups" doesn't accurately describe the situation. I would phrase it as "the expanation of why different ethnic groups have different socioeconomic outcomes is not their genetics for any practical purpose." And calling it a cliche reveals your idealogical bias.
>nobody is making reference to 'New York Italians' as a distinct race save you
And yet, by your metric, they are. They are a distinct population cluster, seperate from any other, which can be identified with near 100% accuracy. They fit every possible definition of a race, except for the fact that they do not worl with a "traditional" model of race (one which is not used in basically any society anymore, as we've reverted to more broad ethnic groups, like Arab, Jew, Turk, White, etc.)

>>17966927
No, history is the main driver of racial groups, i.e. there was a time in history when the group actively formed and a sequence that preserved the grouping until today. Genetics is just a description and a lineage of what people did. If I genocide the "muslim race" (actually a mix of jeets, persians, afghans, asians, and arabs) and replace them all with my seed, that doesn't really say anything except that I did something one time. Muhammad didn't invent a new race like a great man of history.

>>17966892
Like this image. There are many clear problems with trying to say "there are 5 races"
>why are Indians a seperate group when they cluster closer to Asians than some Europeans cluster to each other?
>why is there one caucasian race when arabs, jews, persians, slavs, germans and celts all cluster into their own group?
>the blacks have a million different subgroup, some of which are more distinct than asians and caucasians, but they are always classified as one megagroup
These inconsistencies are the result of a bad model. And anyways, a 2nd century BC slav doesn't care about any of this. He has his tribe, and everyone else, German, Turk or Italic, might as well be from the same horde as far as he's concerned. It's why they called the irish white niggers

>>17958174 (OP)

It wasn't OP. Post Roman Europe didn't become prominent in the world stage until the mid 19th century and that was largely thanks to the invention of the steam engine and industrialization. Any other answers are stupid and retarded.

>>17966929
>Are there 8 billion individual races on Earth?
no, because that's not what we mean by race
please, spare me your reductio ad absurdum arguments

>And calling it a cliche reveals your idealogical bias.
no, it does not—or perhaps to your mind only; I'm calling it a cliché because it is one
you have zero understanding of my politics, and my loyalty here is solely to the truth

>And yet, by your metric, they are
how so?
my metric for a race is the combination of racial category with corresponding genetic cluster (they turned out to be the same thing)

>They are a distinct population cluster, seperate from any other, which can be identified with near 100% accuracy.
but that's not what we're talking about when we talk of race
you're trying very hard to muddy the waters and make the concept seem more nebulous than it actually is, now that it's untenable for you to pull the 'no biological basis' trick
everybody understands what is meant by 'race', and that understanding is falsifiable, and has been proven to correspond to very real genetic population clusters

your argument that groups which at some level correspond to the traditional races can be further subdivided does not disprove race
to use an analogy: that Felidae exists does not disprove the existence of Mammalia

please, abandon the sophistry and argue in good faith

>>17966921
>intelligence and consciousness are only possible through communication and refinement of multiple minds.
Are you saying Egypt had more communication than neolithic proto-Ukrainians? I don't know how you'd measure that

>>17966960
poopulation

>>17966941
>why are Indians a seperate group when they cluster closer to Asians than some Europeans cluster to each other?
are they?
I think Indians are traditionally combined with Europeans, no?
and IIRC that plays out with regards to cluster distances, as well as other indicators like a shared linguistic root

>>17966950
>please, spare me your reductio ad absurdum arguments
My point is that trying to argue that genetic clustering is race is arbitrary. Everyone genetically clusters into a group, at different levels. Race was a post-hoc grouping of the various ethnic groups united under Christendom, and ethnic group is the only real metric that people cared about for thousands of years.
>my metric for a race is the combination of racial category with corresponding genetic cluster
Genetic clustering is real, but where you group is arbitrary. If the same data can give you 1 answer or 8 billion then you are using the data wrong. Racial category is arbitrary and cultural and only exists as it does by people who were influenced by Christendom.
>everybody understands what is meant by 'race', and that understanding is falsifiable
Most people don't think about this, they're not like you or me.
>that Felidae exists does not disprove the existence of Mammalia
Basically all of taxonomy is arbitrary, apart from species and subspecies, which has to do with viability of offspring. Felidae exists because we chose to seperate cats and dogs that way because of how they behave and look. We could have set the boundary further (and in fact did with the grouping of Carnivora.)
A lion is a felid and a carnivoran. Each lion is a unique instance of a lion, which can be grouped into individual lion, immediate family, pride, region, sub species, and so on.
>abandon the sophistry and argue in good faith
To be frank: I dom't think race as the caucasoid-mongoloid-negroid schema is accurate or of much use. Ethnicity is tribe, and tribe is something that demonstratably matters in history. The Balkans didn't go to war over the white race, they went to war over their tribes. Race is an ad-hoc skin draped over ethnicities by 18th century idiots who wanted to unite the disparate groups of europe into a single group.

>>17967006
I don't think it is arbitrary—it's based on distance, see:
>>17966981
and even if it is arbitrary—which I'll entertain briefly only for argument's sake, given the distances do adhere to the traditional anthropological categories of 'scientific racism'—that doesn't disprove the notion that there is a difference in intellect between these (in reality provably real) racial clusters
there is
you've taken us off on a tangent, and I'm really only interested in the original point, which I'll now return to

>>17958174 (OP)
Uhh, nothing. Europeans aren't OP, but they think they are becuase they are selfish as woman. Europeans doesn't create writing system, they used western asian writing system. Europeans does'nt have religion, they use west asian religion, all "european" things are just west asian thing actually, Gunpowder? Not european. What is actually european? So called european empires all where created by jews. Spanish empire? Jews. Columbus was jew, recent dna study proves, all his sponsors were jews, minister of finances of spain were jew. Jews were expelled and spanish empire collapsed. Jews came in netharlands and england, and pump up this countries, but later abandon them and created USA. Netherlands that previosly used to be spanish bitch became (huh, who would have thought?) strong in navy, while spain lost their navy dominance(huh, who would have thought?). And england sucked even french cuck until jews came. Specifically this guy was the real founding father of jewmerica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haym_Salomon
English empire collapsed, jewmerica rule. Some europeans just happened to be used by jews, not a big deal id say

>>17967015
The defining characteristic of the clusters isn't genetics, it's cultural association and decisions made by the powerful. That should be obvious when you're arguing whether Indians count as a nation under the framework.

>>17967020
>nooo, it's just a coincidence bro trust me, also jesus weren't jew he was a white guy from london bro trust me

Whites are literally think jew is their god, lol

>>17967026
>The defining characteristic of the clusters isn't genetics
when we're talking of genetic clusters—and when we talk of races, that is what we're talking about—the defining characteristic is, in fact, genetics
they are /genetic/ clusters, anon
there's no wiggle room for you to escape out of that

>>17967041
You're still talking about them like microscope slides. All it takes to form a new cluster is to mass migrate some people, kid stuff. Herd animal stuff. Human capabilities are way bigger than that, genetics are just substrate. Nothing more than a record.

>>17967049
genes being the substrate from which intellect grows is precisely the point I'm making—we're in agreement on that
that on a long enough timescale, we see the emergence, merging, and collapse of distinct racial groups (which are also genetic population clusters) does nothing to disprove the notion that there are racial differences in intellect
you are tilting at windmills

>>17967064
IQ is nothing. You can't stand up to the collective IQ of your tribe even though they're all average or below. You can only win highly specialized victories. Ramunajeet had 200 IQ but he's dead now and didn't have the franchise to use his gigabrain because he didn't have strong enough backers. The real goal is to keep building on the shoulders of giants and therefore achieve greater civilization. That's what Europeans did

>>17967015
>it's based on distance
Depending on where you draw the line in that chart, there are 1, 2, 5 or 42 races. The original chart posted defines 8 races, which is not the traditional schema either.
Explain to me why your distinction of race is more objective than any of the ones in pic related. These all divide categories according to clusters, these all have a history of being accepted at different times, these all look at biological race.
>that doesn't disprove the notion that there is a difference in intellect between these racial clusters
We can't talk about race if we can't accurately define it. There isn't a practical difference in native intellect between races, in that being of a certain ethnic group is not the biological cause of intelligence, and we can demonstrate this through genetics and neurology. But that's not really a history question, the original point was that Europe did not rise to prominence because Europeans are more intelligent.

>>17967064
>does nothing to disprove the notion that there are racial differences in intellect
Does nothing to prove it either

>>17967084
>indians are europeans saar, we speak indo EUROPEAN language saar, we are closer to dannes than lapps are saar
Good morning

>>17961939
Why would we want to conquer the US? I dont invade my brother's house down the street. I'd rather remove the smelly ghetto across the fence because otherwise the horde will be in my backyard tomorrow.

>>17958174 (OP)
Dumb and shit map.

Most of Japan and Korea were occupied by British troops after 1945.

Interior provinces of China like Sichuan and Shaanxi never had western soldiers but get coloured blue because of Hong Kong on the coast is in the same country as them.

>>17967110
Yeah, meanwhile actual map. Countries what believed into asian religions.
Pink - west asian religions
Yellows - other asian religions

>>17961313
>When the Portuguese arrived in India, Java, China, and Japan

Portugal did have technologal advantage, but that was supposed to be offset by numbers on the opposing side

China managed to defeat the Portuguese at Tamão and Veniaga.

Meanwhile the Portuguese curbstomped and massacred numerically superior Japanese at Fukuda bay.

Stone age Khoisan also defeated a Portuguese force at Salt river. The Khoisan only had a few more men and no metal weapons so they didn't rally have a numerical superiority advantage.

>>17967105
didn't say that porch monkey go throttle a cock

>>17967084
>Explain to me why your distinction of race is more objective than any of the ones in pic related.
you know, it simply doesn't need to be

genetic variation increases with genetic distance
populations can be clustered by this distance (and these clusters do unfortunately correspond to traditional notions of race—apparently revealing 8 distinct races by distance)
specific genes are associated with increased intellect
without a natural mechanism to ensure fairness, which does not exist, increasing genetic distances ensures genes either occur more or less frequently between different clusters, no matter the scale or resolution you choose to apply
hence, there are racial differences in intellect

(1/2)

>>17967084
>There isn't a practical difference in native intellect between races
based on what precisely?
>"Of all the scientific facts about intelligence research, there is one that I would give anything to change: the existence of average differences in IQ scores across different racial or ethnic groups. These differences appeared in the early days of intelligence testing [...] and have persisted into the twenty-first century [...]. Among the most studied racial or ethnic groups, people of East Asian descent usually have the highest average IQ, followed by people of European ancestry."
Warne, R.T., "Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence - 28 - Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental in Origin", Cambridge University Press, (2020).
if it was a mere 1 or 2 points difference, would he express such virtue as wanting to give anything to change the reality of different racial IQs? I think not

>"Recent genome-wide association studies have successfully identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence."
Plomin, R. and von Stumm, S., "The new genetics of intelligence", Nature Reviews Genetics 19(3), (2018).

we're talking 10s of points, up to the previously contested 40, with up to 50% of that currently thought to be heritable (and that's from research conducted in the current political environment, which is compelled by mores to downplay differences at the expense of truth, and also with our limited understanding of polygenic effects on intellect)

that is a practical difference however you define it

(2/2)

>>17966949
>Europe didn't become prominent in the world stage until the mid 19th century
>What is the colonisation of the New World
>What is the colonisation of the Spice Islands
>What is the Atlantic Trilateral trade
>What is the Cape Route trade with India
>What is the circumnavigation of the globe
>What is the Russian drive to the Pacific

Big pp

>>17967126
>China managed to defeat the Portuguese at Tamão and Veniaga.
Yes, Ming China did defeat the Portuguese in those battles. But Ming China was also willing to sign the 1554 Luso-Chinese Agreement giving the Portuguese the right to settle in and administrate the fishing village of Macau in exchange for an annual rent. The Portuguese attracted the native Tanka people who had been forbidden by Chinese law from settling on land. Within Macau that Chinese law was ignored and the Tanka were allowed to build their homes on land. In exchange the Tanka guided Portuguese ships to and from Canton, intermarried with the Portuguese, built local ships, and supplied additional sailors for the voyage to and from Japan. The Portuguese offered the Tanka a much better life than that under the Ming. Over time the Ming dynasty collapsed, despite military assistance from the Portuguese. The relationship between the Portuguese and Tanka ultimately endured until the collapse of the Manchu Qing dynasty when Chinese laws where changed and Tanka were allowed to settle on land within China.

>>17967123
no wonder anon wants to believe 'asian' is a ""traditional race""

>>17967126
>>17967293
and then they raped them

>>17967276
The only event with global implications you mentioned was the discovery of the new world, which was just pure luck rather than skill.

>>17967342
no way man, you can just float to the pacific coast from asia. you can just leapfrog along the island chains. It took great intransigence for China to never properly discover the new world.

>>17965891

what other purpose does a golem serve,

you are beholden to your masters hence your low self esteem and natural disposition to depression and suicide

because the white "man" is nothing but a disposable resource and that is how it is effectively managed, so defines its place in the world

>>17967178
>and these clusters do unfortunately correspond to traditional notions of race—apparently revealing 8 distinct races by distance
8 distinct races is at no point in history the traditional racial schema, and afaik is literally only ever mentioned in this study by those researchers. There is no consistent or objective definition of race using genetic clusters because its genetic clusters all the way up and all the way down.
Every population can be clustered by genetic distance from others. Water is wet. These mean nothing on their own. You keep running away from from this fact towards "traditional" racial groupings that you cannot explain

> increasing genetic distances ensures genes either occur more or less frequently between different clusters
Partially true, although a population doesn't HAVE to change if the conditions are the same, they often do
> hence, there are racial differences in intellect
False. Even if we ignore the evidence against this and try to logic it out, is it not possible that
1.) There are many small genetic changes that affect genetic distance and physical distinction of different ethnic groups
2.) BUT Intelligence is not greatly affected by these myriad genetic changes
Dogs and Cats are different species with a great genetic difference, but you cannot reasonably assume that resistance to cyanide varies between species just because genes do. Two different genetic groups can have the same trait even if they differ in other areas. Of course, humans are more closely related to each other, so its even less likely.

(1/?)

>based on what precisely?
Let us assume we share the goal of creating a successful, internally peaceable, technologically advanced society, as the Euro did following the colonization of America. For these purposes, we can say that the difference ability to perform and create these things is not caused by an innate defect or condition of genetics or race, to any degree that would impact the goal. Genetics isn't the source of the issue, and that line of thinking stunts real solutions to the problem.

>if it was a mere 1 or 2 points difference, would he express such virtue as wanting to give anything to change the reality of different racial IQs?
So I don't know much about this guy, or what his position is. Within the same chapter he says the following:
>The possibility that genes account for the entire difference in intelligence between racial groups is extremely unlikely. The evidence is overwhelming that individual differences in intelligence are at least partially environmentally caused

He also goes on to say
>At first glance, whether differences across groups are heritable seems to have a simple answer: if heritability of intelligence is greater than zero in studies of twins, adoptees, and families, then intelligence should be heritable across groups. After all, heritability is heritability, right? Wrong.
>Because heritability values only apply to a given population under its current environmental conditions, there is no reason to assume that these heritability values will apply to other groups or to the average intelligence differences that exist across racial groups. As a result, it is not sensible to generalize heritability studies performed on people from one racial group (often Europeans) to other groups. It is important to distinguish between heritability within a group from the heritability between groups, which may not be equal

I.E you can't directly compare groups unless you account for the conditions which effect different groups.

(2/?)

>>17967180
The last thing I'll point out is in the von Stumm Study, they aren't comparing between races, because heritability can't be used between two different population groups. This is old hat and I really don't want to go through the whole fuckin' spiel if you don't understand heritability correctly. Suffice to say genetics are not the reason for euro expansion, or euro intelligence for that matter
(3/3)

to answer the question, white people function off cult initiation at expense of their soul and personal sovereignty

resulting in the contractual rise of "european civilization" -blessings preceding the curses that manifest near the leases expiration because cattle is meant to serve one purpose.

....perhaps the white "man" shouldve remained nestled his mudhut

>>17967342
>Russia conquering 10% of the globe had no global implications

>>17967447
It really didnt, maybe if they did so in the 1100's but by the time they did all trade routes had moved via the sea.

>>17967453
>Causes the US to gain Alaska
>Causes warm-water port spergout
>Causes the Great Game
>Causes Russia to be a great power in the first place

>>17967357
>It took great intransigence for China to never properly discover the new world
They had no reason to because everyone wanted to trade with them, while Europe was an irrelevant isolated shithole that had been cucked out of major trade routes which is what kickstarted colonization

>>17958174 (OP)
Like half a millenium of warfare, urban diseas and nautical competition.

>>17967360
You will always be a seething brown retard

>>17967480
No one has any reason to do anything. Being a cavegrug fucking rules.

>>17967539

and you will always be a squealing bidepal pig

>>17967384
>Every population can be clustered by genetic distance from others. Water is wet. These mean nothing on their own. You keep running away from from this fact towards "traditional" racial groupings that you cannot explain
you fail to explain why it matters which specific traditional model we choose to apply; in none of these models is a caucasoid a mongoloid, or a mongoloid an australoid
nobody is racially grouping a Scotsman together with a Sub-Saharan African
you're fixated on this point, and all I can assume is that you're knowingly employing rank sophistry to attempt to pin me to a given model, and I sincerely hope it's patently obvious to anybody reading that whichever model I say I'm personally employing here, it has no bearing whatsoever on the debate as to whether they're all, equally, precisely as intelligent as each other (which is an ideological fantasy)

the fact is, we *can* classify people into racial groups, and these groups *do* broadly correspond to groupings made prior to the discovery of DNA, and these pre-DNA groupings turned out to be accurate in terms of measurable genetic distance—a Chinaman and a Mongol are together; a Bantu and Khoisan are together; an Englishman and a Frenchman are together
and this was brought up to solely counter the ideologues ITT insisting on a lack of any biological basis for race
they are disproven

I will reiterate: your argument that subdivisions and superdivisions are possible is wholly irrelevant when we are discussing groupings on a racial level
you can group people at as low a resolution as being a single group if that's relevant to a given discussion, or you can group people as finely as treating them as complete individuals, but neither of these are accepted definitions of race; they are irrelevant to the discussion, and it's irrelevant for you to bring them up

you can zoom out, if you so choose, far enough that you can no longer see *species*—what of it?

>>17967628
a retarded ugly monster with 75 IQ is more human than your white grandma with 120 IQ because she's either dead or in her 80s. Therefore race doesn't matter in practical terms, you need every swinging dick to fight in the great existential struggle. Pointing to little marginal gains created when we incentivize intelligence, and saying those gains are actually the cause of civilization, is delusional. The reason primitive people don't have genes for civilization is because they don't have civilization, not because they don't have enough genes.

>>17967384
>>17967389
>>17967397
if we imagine all life on earth on a phylogenetic tree, it is proven that there is a difference in intellect between species driven by genetics
if we zoom-in to a very fine level, where we can see individual humans, it is self-evidently obvious that there is a difference in intellect between individual humans which has substantial heritability
but if we partially zoom out to the Walsh and Yun level of genetic population clusters corresponding to the traditional anthropological categories, we are beaten with the ostensible factoid that ALL difference disappears

by what mechanism do you propose that it disappears, save that of ideology?

by strict logic, population clusters must differ in frequencies for alleles associated with polygenic traits like intellect
but there's no special biological mechanism that erases differences precisely at the population-cluster / racial level
ergo, the mechanism is ideological: selective emphasis, framing, and suppression, in order to maintain a socially-acceptable narrative

the reality—despite your unwillingness to accept it—is that there are racial differences in intellect, exactly as there are at the special and individual levels

>>17967637
somebody being dead doesn't make them retroactively less human
claiming that culture alone drives human evolution is reductive—I think they're widely considered to be symbiotic
genes aren't passive, and they play a significant role in enabling civilisation-forming cognitive, social, and physical abilities

if a population cluster wholly lacks genes we associate with higher intellect, and they consequently have lower neuronal density, lower cranial capacity, a cerebral geometry which under-emphasises the PFC, and they don't have an advanced civilisation, is that BECAUSE they don't have a civilisation, or because they lack the abilities to create one on a mental (and thus genetic) level?

>>17967628
>you fail to explain why it matters which specific traditional model we choose to apply; in none of these models is a caucasoid a mongoloid, or a mongoloid an australoid
In some of those models, yes, a caucasoid is a mongoloid. In some of those models race doesn't exist as a classification, and in some we are looking at the world as a collection of ethnic groups.

> whichever model I say I'm personally employing here, it has no bearing whatsoever on the debate
The relevance of this is that I'm trying to dispel the idea that you can make these broad groups as you wish and do whatever with them, because it's not accurate historically or genetically. Your refusal to accept this, or even to define what you mean by race besides "what is traditional" (which you also don't define) muddies the waters, and prevents us from looking at race as what is is, and therefore getting any understanding of its history.

>a Chinaman and a Mongol are together; a Bantu and Khoisan are together; an Englishman and a Frenchman are together
A chinaman and a englishman are also together, depending on where you look. A khoisan is as different to a bantu as a frenchman is to a chinaman. This matters in the context of race and intelligence because you can't measure something if you are struggling to even define the categories.

> these groups *do* broadly correspond to groupings made prior to the discovery of DNA
No, they don't. That was the point; those groupings are very recent and didn't exist before Christendom. This is a history thread.

>you can zoom out far enough that you can no longer see *species*—what of it?
The "what of it" is that because species must share enough in common trait wise, genetics wise, to produce viable offspring. The gulf between two humans is not the same as the gulf between us and the other apes.

>>17967697
> it is self-evidently obvious that there is a difference in intellect between individual humans which has substantial heritability
This is very conditional on the circumstances under which those two humans are tested, and to say otherwise is bullshit and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how heritability works as a statistic.

> if we partially zoom out to the level of clusters corresponding to the traditional anthropological categories
You are choosing to draw the lines there, and you haven't given a reason for why these lines are drawn here other than it's what you FEEL works, because
> we are beaten with the ostensible factoid that ALL difference disappears
isn't true.

>by strict logic, population clusters must differ in frequencies for alleles associated with polygenic traits like intellect
Nonsense. You are assuming that genetics associated with intellect MUST vary, because other genetics also vary. Why are you assuming that they vary?

Is it not possible, as I have said for the second time, that
1.) Many traits vary between ethnic groups, creating differences in appearance, blood type, etc.
2.) We have found no evidence that intelligence is an example of one of those traits, and no condition in history to suggest that there SHOULD be a difference.

You can also assume that because human alleles MUST vary, there is a difference in frequencies for the genes that would create gills, or wings, and therefore there must be an ethnic group that possesses wings and/or gills. This is equally fallacious.

Why should Euros have evolved a higher innate intelligence than any other group? What are your suspicions?

>the reality—despite your unwillingness to accept it—is that there are racial differences in intellect
And the reality, as held by most psychologists, neurologists, and as borne out through the data, is that that isn't the case, and that premise is not taken seriously anywhere off the board

>>17967697
>if a population cluster wholly lacks genes we associate with higher intellect
Not that anon, but saying "genes associated with higher intellect" is deceptive if you don't explain HOW they are associated. The genes that code for high melanin in South Africa are associated with poverty. That poverty is surely not caused by any chemical reaction of melanin with the brain, of course, and is instead because people with high melanin tended to be shunted off into the ghettoes.

>they consequently have lower neuronal density, lower cranial capacity, a cerebral geometry which under-emphasises the PFC
"Lower" does not imply worse. This is literal 17th century phrenology, which no modern researcher uses. You might as well look at horoscopes.

> and they don't have an advanced civilisation
And my original point, WAY back when, was that intellect hardly mattered in terms of how Europe conquered the world. The first Eurasians who took America would be able to do it easily because of disease and lack and draft animals, and whoever took that would have millions of miles of the best land in the world to spend on technology, food, weapons, etc, and use that to conquer the rest of the world.

>>17967753
>You are choosing to draw the lines there, and you haven't given a reason for why these lines are drawn here other than it's what you FEEL works, because
the entire point is that it doesn't matter where we draw the line
genetic differences in intellect occur at ever level—between species, between individuals, and everywhere in-between

>>17967753
To preempt a little: yes, brain size varies between races. However, intelligence is not defined by "how big your brain is" or "how voluminous is your skull."
There are several problems with just saying 'skull size is different, therefore intelligience is different:"
>It ignores animals with a higher body-encephalitic quotient, neuron density, and/or brain size
>It ignores the intergroup disparity of brain size, i.e men and women of the same ethnic group have the same intelligience and different brain sizes
>It ignores things like malnutrition, bad medical treatment, toxins like lead and asbestos which are much more prevalent in poorer regions, etc.
It is very easy to think "brain size big, be smarter" but that is inaccurate. It's a caveman like view of intelligence and neurology. These are the facts.

>>17967768
>the entire point is that it doesn't matter where we draw the line
For a historical and genetic analysis of civilization, yes, it does.

>genetic differences in intellect occur at ever level—between species, between individuals, and everywhere in-between
Again, this is true, but that doesn't mean that those genetic differences create differences in intelligence. "People are different, therefore they must be different in exactly the way I believe" is not true.

>>17962952
Europe had dozens of rival states in close proximity to each other. In Subsaharan Africa, the rival states were more spaced out.

>>17967760
>Not that anon, but saying "genes associated with higher intellect" is deceptive if you don't explain HOW they are associated.
year-upon-year, we're finding—with increasing accuracy—that intelligence (as well as behavioural outcomes) can be predicted by polygenic testing
the genes which score more highly are those associated with intellect, and they make these predictions independently of environmental factors
we've identified inherited genome sequences which account already for ~10-15% of a person's intellect, and that number is growing as we identify more

as a caveat, it should be said that measured IQ score and educational attainment does differ from the maximum-achievable IQ as defined by genetics, but that point is moot given the nature of the discussion—we're talking about whether there are racial differences in intellect, which there are, given every individual's genome sets biological constraints on the possible range of their cognitive ability—including an upper-bound—and their population-cluster grouping sets biological constraints on the possible range of genomic sequences in their genome

and to be clear: I'm not saying one group is more intelligent than another, I'm saying alone and merely that groups are differently intelligent to each other as a biological inevitability

I'm certainly not aiming to judge anybody in particular—we should treat individuals as individuals, and groups as groups

>>17967781
what about "genes associated with intellect occur at different rates in different population clusters, therefore there must be differences in intellect in different population clusters"
because maximum attainable intellect is a biological limit governed by genetics, and the limit varies based on genetic variability, with different groups being separated by genetic variability

>>17967800
>the genes which score more highly are those associated with intellect, and they make these predictions independently of environmental factors
I would be very interested to see that data, since I have never heard of anything which proves
1.) Environmental conditions are trumped by genetics even between wildly different conditions like we have in the real world
2.) That those genes are not just associated with different ethnic groups, but with intelligence itself.

>and their population-cluster grouping sets biological constraints on the possible range of genomic sequences in their genome
True, but why would intelligence be affected by one of them?

We can look at melanin content tooth structure and blood type differences between ethnic groups and give concrete reasons for why they vary (different level of UV, different food requires different teeth, different diseases mean that some blood types are better than others) etc. You are right to point out evolution doesn't stop above the neck, but evolution requires drivers, and there are none to suggest that Euros should be more intelligent.

>Gills can also be coded for, and are associated with certain genetic groups.
>There are a set amount of differences between ethnic groups in their genetic makeup
>Therefore, some ethnic groups have gills
This is the reasoning that is used for why racial intelligence ought to vary, even though it doesn't. In fact, there's a better argument that gills should have evolved since some ethnic groups live on islands, and could use gills.

> I'm saying alone and merely that groups are differently intelligent to each other as a biological inevitability
You are not merely saying this, you are saying
>The intelligence gap between racial/ethnic groups is primarily driven by their racial/ethnic genetics, not by environment.

>>17967807
>genes associated with intellect occur at different rates in different population clusters, therefore there must be differences in intellect in different population clusters
This assumes that the association is causative. 1923 Armenian genes are associated with getting a bullet in the brainpan and being buried in a shallow ditch. Did Armenia, 1923 suddenly evolve a mutation which causes suicidal tendencies?
>and the limit varies based on genetic variability
Not true. The limit may be vastly different in groups that are near identical.

If a group of Europeans suddenly get a mutation which stunts their IQ, and are otherwise identical to their neighbors, they have very little genetic variation to their neighbors
And a group on the other side of the world, like the Indians, though they have a massive genetic difference, are not likely to be less intelligent unless there's a reason for it.
Genetic differences =/= difference in intelligence.

>>17967888
>1.) Environmental conditions are trumped by genetics even between wildly different conditions like we have in the real world
I'm not sure you're understanding what it is I'm saying
the point is that the polygenic testing—even in its nascent state—is functioning to predict intelligence, with ever-increasing accuracy, and that because this a testing of the presence of specific genomic sequences, those predictions are wholly independent of environmental conditions
for the point of the argument, it doesn't matter which trumps which—there being a genetic contribution along population clusters AT ALL negates the rather naïve assertion that genetic differences occur amongst population clusters in everything save intellect

>True, but why would intelligence be affected by one of them?
you're asking why intelligence is affected by one specific genomic sequence? put simply, many genes work in tandem, each contributing small effects on brain development and function, and their cumulative action governs and places limits on cognitive ability
the contribution from one sequence would be small, but the reasoning is identical

>you are saying "The intelligence gap between racial/ethnic groups is primarily driven by their racial/ethnic genetics, not by environment."
where did I say that?
you're putting words in my mouth

>Not true. The limit may be vastly different in groups that are near identical.
then they're not near identical as it pertains to the genes governing maximum attainable intellect, are they?

>Genetic differences =/= difference in intelligence.
but difference in genomic sequences governing intelligence == difference in intelligence

>>17967945

Your pic is very misleading about why simply having genes "associated" with intelligence does not mean those genes are causative. This is kind of a complicated subject, but here is a thought experiment I heard.

Let us assume, hypothetically, that there is no racial intelligence gap caused by genetics. Take the following situation:
>The MC1R gene creates a higher level of melanin (this isn't true IRC, but I'll let it be). It does not impact intelligence.
>Groups that have this gene tended to evolve in deserts and harsh climates, where there are not many resources (this is true of blacks and the australians irl)
>Because they have no resources, they get their land taken by a group who live in a less harsh climate, who have more resources and can mount a larger army. Since this group had a less harsh climate, their skin color is much lighter (among things like hair color, blood type, etc)
>They are thus, at best, relegated as second class citizens with worse conditions than their conquerors. They get leaded water and asbestos houses, and their children are starving.
>They are identifiable, easily, by their dark skin. They cannot blend in as having pale skin, and everyone who sees them knows what they are.
Therefore
>Their dark skin is directly causing them to have worse environments, and thus the MC1R gene is causing them to have worse environments.
If you take a sample, the MC1R gene is associated with lower intelligence. All the alleles present in the paler group will be associated with better health, bigger brains, more intelligence, because they have the advantage. The MC1R gene is not CREATING the gap, but every sample you take will suggest that they do, unless you account for the conditions in which they live.

>>17967945
>the point is that the polygenic testing is functioning to predict intelligence, with ever-increasing accuracy
Is it predicting intelligence, or is it predicting the existence of traits associated with groups that have a higher intelligence for different, non-genetic reasons?

>there being a genetic contribution along population clusters AT ALL negates the rather naïve assertion that genetic differences occur amongst population clusters in everything save intellect
I never said there was zero contribution, just that it was not the practical cause of the intelligence gap.

>many genes work in tandem, each contributing small effects on brain development and function, and their cumulative action governs and places limits on cognitive ability
Again, why would this vary between ethnic groups? What advantage is there for blacks to be less intelligent?

>then they're not near identical as it pertains to the genes governing maximum attainable intellect, are they?
They have, on aggregate, far less genetic variation, and will cluster as a single group with the other, non-retarded group. And yet, if you assume that they therefore share the same level of intelligence, and put them in charge of NASA you will get a Challenger 2 Mechanical Boogaloo

>difference in genomic sequences governing intelligence == difference in intelligence
you are assuming that these sequences govern intelligence: I refer you to the thought experiement as to why that is fallacious.

You have not given me a reason why we should expect the intelligence gap between races to be caused by genes.

>>17967945
we can even extend the thought experiment further.
>Let us assume that both of these hypothetical groups have blue eyes
>Blue eyes will not be associated with intelligence
>Let us assume that the conquering group has black hair and the other group has blonde hair, as in the melanesians
>The genes that cause blonde hair will be associated with lower intelligence.
This is what is going on with those European alleles. If you take anything away from this conversation take this thought experiment with you.

>>17967293
>, despite military assistance from the Portuguese

Portugal's enemy, the Dutch were directly in conflict with the Ming and had superior weaponry, during the war against the Qing dynasty.

The Ming defeated the Dutch at the Pescadores Penghu islands, Liaoluo bay and Taiwan in both naval and land battles.

The Ming did not have a technological advantage over the Qing because of Portuguese cannons, the Dutch were right there in the war sailing their ships along the coast.

>>17967697
>somebody being dead doesn't make them retroactively less human
ok you and your heroic ancestors can fight me, pablo, and slingblade. Actually I'll just relax and watch them beat up you and your ancestors from a 10-1 IQ deficit.

>>17968202
obligatory "just like in WW2" comment

>>17968047
it's disingenuous of you to pretend that we're dealing with exclusively statistical associations, with no actual proven causative effect on intellect, simply so you can hold onto this fantasy of yours
very "God of the gaps"

here:
loci influencing intracranial volume:
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32831433
influencing total surface area:
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32193296

are you really going to continue with this sophistry of pretending that NONE of the SNPs associated with higher intellect actually contribute at all to intellect?
if you're unwilling, you concede there's a concrete genetic basis for differing intellect, accounting for environmental factors on attaining the biological upper bound on IQ
you must also accept that these sequences are unevenly distributed across population clusters (simply because they are—the distance is what defines the clusters)
hence, there are racial-level differences in IQ which cannot be explained by environmental factors, just as there are species-level differences, and individual-level differences
there's not some 'great equaliser' which operates solely on IQ at the level of race

>you are assuming that these sequences govern intelligence
and either you're assuming that *none* of the sequences associated with brain development govern intelligence, or you're supportive of my point that some *are*, and therefore there are different degrees of intelligence between population clusters
you're just squirming at this point

>You have not given me a reason why we should expect the intelligence gap between races to be caused by genes.
because intellect is ultimately the result of genetic expression, and genes are not distributed equally amongst the races

>>17969031
oh yeah, then how come some people are smarter than both parents?

Got a headstart with indo european addoption of horses and stuff + already existing noeolitic societies + incredibly close to start of civilization (sumeria) so by proxy (egypt and persia proxies) got a lot of the advantages of the ancient middle east + greek city states fighting each other and proggessably getting more naturally ambitious (as we see in macedon and just greek thought getting progressively more distinct and refined) +dessemination of those same ideas by rome though the continent (who perfected the empire game) + end of rome creating different kingdoms who fight each other (innovating in the process)
+ Christianity having a messianic ideology wich unified the continent and is meant to be spread + silk road giving them guns+ fall of Constantinople blocking the spice routes (therfore having to seek alternative routes).
That's how they did it.

>>17969061
>genetic assortative mating
can combine complementary advantageous alleles from each parent, leading to higher genetic intellect (i.e. polygenic cognitive potential)
>gene recombination
shuffles alleles to probabilistically produce sequences which can lead to higher genetic intellect
even if both parents are below average, probabilistic inheritance alone can produce offspring closer to or above the mean (sometimes called 'regression to the mean')
>differing epigenetic regulation of gene expression
same genes, expressed differently due to environment, allows the same DNA to produce differing effects on the brain more advantageous to intellect
>differing level of education
affords different intellectual attainment (but has no effect on the maximum attainable intellect afforded by genetics)
>better nutrition
affords better brain development (but has no effect on the maximum attainable intellect afforded by genetics)

you people really need to let go of the idea that there's no genetic component to intelligence, and that there's no difference in genetic variants between population clusters
I appreciate the idea is to prevent idiots from committing the same evils as we saw in the 20th century, but the idea that organisms display differing intellect at the special-level, and at the individual-level, but specifically NOT and ONLY not at the racial level is... frankly ridiculous and bizarre—you're holding back scientific understanding out of ignorance and ideology

>>17969166
That doesn't make any sense, what does environment have to do with genetics? Complementary alleles? That sounds like hybrid vigor mutt nonsense. I don't understand how you can improve by changing the bloodline. Genes are responsible for intellect, what the parents do has no say in the matter.

>>17969174
>what does environment have to do with genetics?
you seem to be unfamiliar with epigenetics
in short, the environment can influence how genes are expressed, leading to different biological outcomes from the same DNA
I'll try to give an example:
two identical twins separated at birth, with one going to a good home, and the other going to a more stressful environment
the early-life stress on the latter twin can epigenetically alter genes regulating cortisol response, which affects their brain development, and their behaviour, despite them having the exact same DNA
and this isn't the same as purely psychological damage from their more stressful upbringing—it's more of a intersection between nature and nurture

>Complementary alleles? That sounds like hybrid vigor mutt nonsense.
genes don't always work in isolation, but rather polygenic combinations can also produce effects together
as a simple example:
imagine parent A has sequence A, which contributes to neuronal density
parent B has sequence B, which contributes to a wavier brain with a greater total surface area
if the child inherits both sequences, they have both the larger brain from B, and the denser brain from A, meaning their cognitive potential is higher than either big-brain or dense-brain parent

it should also be noted that genetic assortative mating is mate choice based on SIMILAR genetic type and phenotypical expression between parents—it's actually quite the opposite of 'hybrid vigour'

>Genes are responsible for intellect, what the parents do has no say in the matter
genes are responsible for the upper-bound on intellectual ability, but what a child is fed, or how they're educated, or what kind of environment they live in, can all reduce that down from the biological limit afforded by their genes

>>17969199
This is some pure Jared Diamond cringe. Environment can "influence" how genes are "expressed" look buddy, the genes are what define intellect alright. Not whether it's snowing or if your culture practices infanticide.

>>17969224
>the genes are what define intellect alright
it's true, but you're conflating realised intellect with the ceiling on intellect imposed by genetics
they're not the same
somebody can't be any smarter than their genes afford, but they can certainly be dumber

as for epigenetics: imagine an infant being exposed to a drug which alters DNA methylation, inhibiting genes related to brain development—so even though their genes *should* afford them a high intellect, their brain doesn't develop to its maximum potential
that's plausible, right?
now the same thing, but it's not a drug they're exposed to, but high levels of cortisol from their mother via the umbilical cord—with a similar effect on modulating brain development
now the same thing again, but this time it's childhood stress, with the same high levels of cortisol, but a different stage of brain development

three different outcomes, three different cognitive potentials, but the exact same DNA
epigenetics is a real thing—not quite nurture, not quite nature, but both at the same time

>>17969240
Everyone carries genes that can be expressed in a way that makes them smarter than they actually are. Even animals. Where is the special cutoff for white intellect? Remember Ramamajeet was 300 IQ.

>>17969246
>Everyone carries genes that can be expressed in a way that makes them smarter than they actually are. Even animals.
not every organism carries the same genes, no
if you're arguing that most organisms don't attain the maximum IQ afford by their genes, then that's fine, but it's a separate discussion
>Where is the special cutoff for white intellect?
sorry, it's not clear what you mean by "the special cutoff for white intellect"?
and is that 'special' as in 'specie-al', or 'special' as in exceptional or unique? it's ambiguous

>>17969256
All organisms carry the genetic potential to be much higher IQ because IQ is the difference between picking a door at random and knowing the probabilities when you pick a door at random.

>>17969272
I'm not sure I see your point
when I talk of genetic potential IQ, I specifically mean the biologically-imposed upper-limit on intellect as it pertains to the genome of one individual organism
are you perhaps using it differently?

>>17958174 (OP)
Whites are being replaced while they sit and watch in the corner like spineless cucks. There's nothing OP about them.

>>17969277
that's not happening in a vacuum, though; it's taken a enormous, concerted effort on the part of intersectional neomarxists and vested anti-White interests to get things to that point
and it's still not over
a terrible and sudden reckoning could be right around the corner, as happened in the '30s and '40s

>>17969277
You don't know the future, stop acting like you do.

>>17969276
Every individual has the genetic potential to be dramatically high IQ through epigenetic expression or environmental manipulation. Any person could've developed differently than they did, becoming a genius. There is no racial upper limit. Excuse me, there's no genetic racial limit. Races are profoundly limited by their material circumstances, the place they came from. If you were born black today, you'd probably be materialistic or family oriented, not try to help the race which seems so far behind already, just adopt white man social norms when necessary. That's logical in the circumstances, less a matter of IQ gene expression. The fact that one person can't make sweeping changes is at fault more than genes, which are themselves real because they're expressions of things people did over millennia. Not because they were gifted by God.

"guess that's part of the game, but I feel for the nigga who think he just gon' come and change things"

>>17969293
>Excuse me, there's no genetic racial limit.
ah, I think I see what you're getting at
you're imagining that epigenetic changes have limitless and infinite ability to change an organism into... whatever
unfortunately not
there is in fact a limit to epigenetic's ability to affect biological outcomes, and it's the actual presence of genetic sequences which determines the polygenic ceiling for intelligence; it's defined by inherited DNA
epigenetic and environmental factors can only determine whether you get close to that ceiling, or you fall short
but the ceiling itself is genetic

we oughn't just say that things which we imagine are true are the truth
it might not be a pleasant idea that there are hard limits on intellect within population clusters, but it is biological fact

>>17969310
source: your hopes and dreams
Most genes aren't expressed noticeably at all. The rest are nothing without environment. In the future of VR and kinetic technology you may be considered inferior to blacks with faster reflexes -- if they haven't already traded that advantage for IQ over a mere few generations.

>>17969316
simply put—epigenetics can only modulate existent sequences
to make the claim that an organism with genes coding for a smooth, sparse brain, and lacking genes affording a developed PFC, could become a genius via DNA methylation alone is abject nonsense

you unfortunately cannot use the existence of epigenetics to counter the reality of genetic hard limits on intellect

>>17969324
the gene goes from being not expressed to being expressed. Then it gets combined with someone else and passed down. Epigenetics becomes regular genetics after one generation numpty

>>17958174 (OP)
99% of the world are savage shitholes. of the few civilized peoples europeans are the only ones who went out of their way to invade these shitholes. china didn't give a shit about africa, neither did iran, etc. winning at a game no one plays doesn't really account for much, especially when the long term outcome is being invaded and replaced by those demi-humans you attacked.

>>17969331
>Epigenetics becomes regular genetics after one generation numpty
the underlying DNA sequences are not changed—so no, they don't
to make clear to you what it is you're talking about—epigenetics covers changes to gene expression only, not changes to the actual genes

>>17969339
right, but when you're born that's a new combination of genes including epigenetic changes from the parents. You then have a whole other set of genes that can change their expression through epigenetics. The change is cumulative and it accumulates pretty quickly.

>>17969031
>very "God of the gaps"
"God of the Gaps" would be assuming that the genetic differences between ethnicities MUST include genes that
1.) Significantly impact the intelligence gap
2.) Are causative, and not associative, like melanin or hair shape.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32831433
>We studied the within-family relationship between brain volume and intelligence in the much larger sample provided by the Human Connectome Project and found a highly significant correlation (disattenuated ρ = 0.18, p < .001) .
This is not a comparison between different groups, certainly not ethnic groups. It is a comparison between people who share the exact same environment. This tells you nothing about how much genetics impact intelligence, only that in the absence of different environments, they correlate. And again, things can correlate without being causal.

In fact it goes on to say
>Using bivariate LD Score regression, we found a genetic correlation between intracranial volume (ICV) and years of education of 0.41
How long you spent in school has as much association on your intracranial volume as does your genetics.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32193296/
This doesn't go over how these vary between ethnic groups, it just locates some genes that are associated with brain structure (which itself is not just "big brain = smarter"). Again, "ethnic groups are different genetically" doesn't mean "ethnic groups are different in the ways I want them to be different." Why haven't you brought up the massive genetic gap between us and the flying fish people?

>>17969031
>you concede there's a concrete genetic basis for differing intellect, accounting for environmental factors on attaining the biological upper bound on IQ
Accounting for environmental factors is lifting a lot of the load there. Yes, if you remove every variable that contributes to intelligence other than genetics the rest of the influence is genetics. You haven't done that.

>you must also accept that these sequences are unevenly distributed across population clusters
Why do I need to accept that? You haven't provided me with any proof that they are. One of the sequences that is unevenly distributed codes for melanin content. Are you going to argue that melanin causes lower intelligence?

>there's not some 'great equaliser' which operates solely on IQ at the level of race
1.) There's not some 'great unequaliser' which would have impacted ancient Africans and Americans more than ancient Europeans and Asians.
2.) Requiring a high level of intelligence to survive in a neolithic world IS a great equaliser.

>or you're supportive of my point that some *are*, and therefore there are different degrees of intelligence between population clusters
Don't put words in my mouth. What I said:
>I never said there was zero contribution {of genetics}, just that it was not the practical cause of the intelligence gap.

>>17969342
no, you don't get a "new set of genes" at all; you get the same inherited DNA sequences
some epigenetic markers are thought to be heritable, but certainly not most—most aren't passed on, and of the few which are passed on, most are reset during early embryonic development

things like recombination can produce more intelligent offspring—that much is true—but the offspring of the offspring are subject again to further shuffling, meaning they're likely to regress back toward the population cluster's mean intelligence
this is typically just called "regression to the mean"

>>17969353
no, I'm not going to argue that melanin is related to intelligence—that would be a false link
what I am arguing is that genetic sequences vary in frequency across population clusters—and this includes sequences unrelated to appearance, some of which influence traits like intellect
for you to argue that all such sequences occur at identical frequencies across all populations, you're going to need to provide a mechanism explaining how natural selection, drift, and recombination yields uniformity despite different evolutionary histories

I'll wait

>>17969366
You get the same DNA, most of which isn't expressed in any meaningful way. There's endless interactions between genes canceling and activating one another. Your premise that white people have a higher IQ because their genes are maxed out at a higher limit is akin to 19th century people thinking the body would come apart at speeds over 60 mph.

>>17969384
>Your premise that white people have a higher IQ because their genes are maxed out at a higher limit is akin to 19th century people thinking the body would come apart at speeds over 60 mph.
where did you get the idea that that was my premise?
my premise is that there are racial differences in IQ governed by differences in genetic variants between population cluster
that's it

you're introducing some kind of hang-up you hold if you think I'm taling about Whites—I'm just talking about the general principle
be wary of misapplying your mental model to reality, and what it is I'm actually arguing

try to keep your ideology out

>>17969396
Nice try. Might want to look at the OP of this thread if you still remember that far back.

>>17969399
I'm not OP, and I'm not arguing whatever his point was
you've attributed an argument to me, which is not an argument I've made—why did you do that?
please, just argue against the post you're arguing against, and refrain from inventing strawmen

>>17969404
You don't even remember your own posts. If you're going to deny everything, there's nothing I can do because there are no IDs here, but they're your posts. You can deny making any of the posts ITT, go ahead. I just wanted to be right.

>>17969376
>no, I'm not going to argue that melanin is related to intelligence—that would be a false link
Gee, maybe that was the point I was making this whole time. Do you see why >>17967945 is fallacious now?

>genetic sequences vary in frequency across population clusters—and this includes sequences unrelated to appearance, some of which influence traits like intellect
There are two problems here
1.) Just because a gene sequence varies, doesn't mean its causative to intelligence. See above; melanin genes vary between ethnicities, melanin content is negatively correlated with intelligence, but melanin does not cause the intelligence gap.
2.) It is quite possible that NO genes that affect intelligence vary between ethnicity, the same way it is possible that NO genes that affect the presence or wings, gills or laser vision vary between ethnicities.

>you're going to need to provide a mechanism explaining how natural selection, drift, and recombination yields uniformity despite different evolutionary histories
I would argue the inverse is true; you need to explain why diminishing intelligence was more beneficial for non Eurasians than for Eurasians. Ancient Africa and America were not paradises, and I see no reason why the people of those lands should have evolved to be less intelligent, and why Eurasians should have evolved to be more intelligent. I refer you back to
>>17965568 and >>17965604

>>17969408
I think there are three of us here at least

>>17969408
please, link me to the post you believe I've made saying that "Whites have a higher genetic limit imposed on their intellect than any others, and are thus the most intelligent", which I think sums up what you're accusing me of saying

I don't believe I've said that

>>17969417
any of you have an argument? LLM fucking shits.

>>17969419
Here's some eurocentric art you posted in the eurocentrism thread wherein you argue the affirmative like an aryanist ape. >>17966892

>>17967126
>>17967332

https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/16658070/#q16658070

>>16658070

Japanese sold Koreans as slaves to Portuguese in the Imjin war including Korean sex slaves

Korean women gave birth to Portuguese fathered babies in Macau.

Japanese also raped Korean girls in barley fields during Imjin war.

Ming Chinese troops raped Korean girls during the Imjin war, accusing their families of being Japanese collaborators

>>17969417
I didn't make posts
>>17965568 and >>17965604
or the posts they're replying to
I'm not going to defend points which aren't mine
I've deliberately avoided talking about real-world specifics, and sticking to the general principle of there being variation—because my goal isn't to upset anyone, or claim superiority

I'm simply saying that there are invariably differences a priori, which seems self-evident given there are differences for all other polygenic traits
and given that intelligence is highly polygenic, it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to cognitive traits differ in frequency AT ALL across populations
you really seem to genuinely be arguing that ALL relevant alleles are PERFECTLY uniform across every population cluster
for you to make such an improbable claim, you really do have to substantiate that with evidence—a request which you've dodged once already now

I'm simply saying that some variation invariably exists; and if variation exists, then differences exist, and my point stands
you have the more difficult argument to make by far, so cough up that evidence—the burden of proof is on you to support the claim of completely perfect uniformity across racial clusters, otherwise... differences invariably exist

>>17969426
it's Eurocentric art, but it wasn't posted as an argument for White racial superiority
you're choosing to completely ignore the context—the topic was the biological validity of the 'traditional anthropological categories' as supported by the literature... and those are a depiction of one model of traditional anthropological categories
...it might be surprising to you to learn that there aren't many modern depictions of the same

that picture alone, and taken in context, can hardly be construed as me making an argument along the lines of
"Whites have a higher genetic limit imposed on their intellect than any others, and are thus the most intelligent"
please, you're reaching hard—if you still claim I made a post along those lines, then find it
otherwise keep your victim-complex to yourself

>>17969426
>argue the affirmative like an aryanist ape
also, let's not lower the tone to racial insults, eh?
I'd like to imagine you people better than that

>>17969450
>given that intelligence is highly polygenic, it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to cognitive traits differ in frequency AT ALL across populations

>>17967384
>is it not possible that
> 1.) There are many small genetic changes that affect genetic distance and physical distinction of different ethnic groups
>2.) BUT Intelligence is not greatly affected by these myriad genetic changes

I'm covered this point.

Also
>It's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to laser vision differ in frequency AT ALL across populations

>you really seem to genuinely be arguing that ALL relevant alleles are PERFECTLY uniform across every population cluster
>a request which you've dodged once already now
Again, for the THIRD time
>>17968051
>I never said there was zero contribution {of genetics}, just that it was not the practical cause of the intelligence gap.

>I'm simply saying that some variation invariably exists;
I agree, but this statement means nothing without context. "Water is wet." "The Sky is Blue"
>and if variation exists, then differences exist,
I refer you to >>17969351 as to why this is fallacious.

>the burden of proof is on you to support the claim of completely perfect uniformity across racial clusters

1.) I don't know why you are so obsessed with "perfect" uniformity. "Prove all ethnic groups are genetically identical or you're wrong" is not a reasonable stance to take anon.
2.) I am merely suggesting that environment is the major cause of the ethnic intelligence gap. It is up to you to prove that the differences between the racial clusters contains a secret, hidden cause of the gap that no one else has found.

>>17969530
>I never said there was zero contribution {of genetics}, just that it was not the practical cause of the intelligence gap.
good
and if we're in agreement over my point that
"there is a genetic difference in intellect along racial lines"
then we're done
that's all I set out to defend, and you're not attacking

>>17958174 (OP)
Riverine connections
Lactase persistance
Cold winters
Flat terrain
Tailor-made religion

>>17969540
>and if we're in agreement over my point that "there is a genetic difference in intellect along racial lines" then we're done
So your walls of text were all trying to prove that 0.0000000001 points of the IQ gap MAY have been directly caused by genetics? Do you understand how low of a bar that it?

>>17969608
the fact you're acquiescing to there being genetic differences in racial intellect at all is good enough for now
my original point stands

we're done

>>17969540
And anyways, there's nothing saying that the IQ gap even disfavors the group currently at the bottom of the gap. It is not equally possible that
>The groups currently at the bottom of the gap have genetics which create a higher IQ
>BUT the environment they are currently in is causing a much larger decrease in IQ
These are equally as likely as the inverse, that is to say, equally as unlikely. So we have three circumstances
1.) There is a very small genetically caused gap disadvantaging Eurasians, but the vast majority of the gap is environmental
1.) There is a very small genetically caused gap disadvantaging Non-Eurasians, but the vast majority of the gap is environmental
2.) There is no statistically significant gap, but the vast majority of the gap is environmental.

>>17969618
>my original point stands
No it doesn't? I've said that since the first post and you're prancing around like a lunatic and acting like you've said something enlightening.

You don't understand genetics, neurology or the racial intelligence gap enough, and this is why the consensus today is that the racial intelligence gap is not caused by genetics.

>>17969623
given the nascency of the science, it's moot

it's currently impossible to make strong claims either way about the "practical" impact of genetics on population cluster intellect
we can thus far explain some ~10-15% of the variance in cognitive traits using polygenic scoring, and this number is still growing as more relevant variants are discovered—the known variance is a lower bound at this point; more alleles will be identified over time
despite this, it could be argued that it's very much already a "practical" contribution
but—any claims either way regarding the total role of genetics on intellect would be purely speculative—and I'm simply not interested in venturing into a moot area of discussion simply so you can keep arguing your side of "muh socioeconomic"

please, recognise the actual point which I'm making:
>"there is a genetic difference in intellect along racial lines"
and have the grace to bow out, now that you've decided not to actually argue against it

you're strawmanning

>>17969635
come now, don't resort to petty insults because you goalpost-shifted to the point you lost
be magnanimous

>>17969638
>given the nascency of the science, it's moot
>more alleles will be identified over time
The Human Genome Project was completed in 2001, and more study had been done for decades before. It has been over 24 years and we have not found any evidence that the ethnic gap in IQ is genetic.

>we can thus far explain some ~10-15% of the variance in cognitive traits using polygenic scoring
This is a decades old misconception. Comparisons between members of the same group do not translate between comparisons between different groups. This is what I mean when I say you don't understand heredity. Pic related illustrates this.

>"there is a genetic difference in intellect along racial lines"
When you say genetic difference, do you mean
>The gap in intelligence is directly caused by the genetics of certain ethnic groups
>The gap in intelligence is caused by environment, which is caused by social factors associated with genes, a la >>17968047

>please, recognise the actual point which I'm making, and have the grace to bow out, now that you've decided not to actually argue against it

This is the motte and bailey fallacy, and is not an argument in good faith.

>There may be a statistically insignificant genetic contribution to the gap between ethnicity, although we have not found evidence of it.
>The lion's share of the gap is caused by genetics that specifically vary between ethnicity.

These are two wildly different points and you switch between them depending on whichever you think will work best.

Why haven't you addressed the thought experiments in
>>17968047
or in
>>17969351

you keep fleeing what I've said and hyperfocusing on what you think I've said.

Guys
don't tell me you are still arguing over this shit. Don't you have lives or something else to do? Everything is more productive than this

>>17958174 (OP)
Merit based societies.
Nuclear families as basic societal structures instead of clans.
Constant need for innovation to outcompete neighbours.
Internal dualism with materialism and idealism at centre, which makes society more fragile but also extremely flexible to change.

>>17969793
he's just trying to snatch victory from to jaws of defeat by moving the debate into the specific contribution of genetics, not realising he's already admitted racial IQ differences are real
the debate is over

>>17969852
actual lunatic. Keep putting your fingers in your ears, I'm sure that will prove me wrong.

>>17969763
>The Human Genome Project was completed in 2001, and more study had been done for decades before. It has been over 24 years and we have not found any evidence that the ethnic gap in IQ is genetic.
The Human Genome Project? sequencing the genome tells us the DNA sequence, but does not identify which alleles affect complex traits like intelligence—we still need to identify all the genetic variants which contribute to intelligence
you do understand the difference between 'which genes' and 'what those genes do when taken together'?
the latter is vastly more complicated, and I'm not sure why you're attempting to conflate them

>This is a decades old misconception....
do you mean because the variants which code for higher intellect in one population aren't always the same variants doing the same in another?
you understand that groups having difference genetic variants is my entire point?
polygenic scores developed in one population not necessarily generalising to other populations is a known limitation, not a "decades-old misconception"
I don't know where you heard that
the problem you have with your line of argumentation is that when we understand the variants from *both* populations with the same accuracy, then we'll still be able to make direct comparisons between the respective upper bounds, and all we can say until such a time is that it's extremely unlikely that there are identical upper-bounds, which is good enough to support my point of there being racial differences in IQ

also, for Mr. "Race isn't real... Okay it is, but there are no IQ differences... Okay there are, but they're only slight..." to accuse me of motte-and-bailey tactics is... rich

>>17969916
and would you please stop being such a prototypical leftist trying to call my sanity into question simply because you're losing?
I know you'd love to have anybody who disagrees with you put in a sanatorium, but we're just two men having a debate

try to keep it gentlemanly

>>17969964
>we still need to identify all the genetic variants which contribute to intelligence
The point I'm making is that there has been a study of this topic for decades, and it still isn't settled. The Bell Curve came out in 92 and even the writers currently don't think that the evidence is there.

>you understand that groups having difference genetic variants is my entire point?
No, your point is groups have different genetic variants AND those variants are the cause of the intelligence gap. The latter statement is false, and I have been attacking that from the beginning.

>when we understand the variants from *both* populations with the same accuracy, then we'll still be able to make direct comparisons between the respective upper bounds
So you agree that the current understanding of genetics does not suggest that the gap is caused by genetics?

>it's extremely unlikely that there are identical upper-bounds, which is good enough to support my point of there being racial differences in IQ
No, it's not. Once again
>it's extremely unlikely that there are identical upper-bounds, which is good enough to support my point of there being racial differences in the ability to fly or breathe underwater
You have yet to respond to that point, from the very beginning.

>also, for Mr. "Race isn't real... Okay it is, but there are no IQ differences... Okay there are, but they're only slight..." to accuse me of motte-and-bailey tactics is... rich
If you notice, I have only used the term ethnicity this whole conversation, because it is accurate. This is why I called you a lunatic; you are refusing to read what I've said and are hallucinating things. Also

>you please stop being such a prototypical leftist trying to call my sanity into question simply because you're losing?
Mr. "I'm not trying to say anything about groups, I'm just asking questions" is finally dropping his faux neutrality. You dropped civility first and got pissy when I did the same.

>>17969964
But we can settle this, right now.
1.) Do you believe that the gap in intelligence between ethnic groups is caused, primarily, by the genetic differences between groups?

This is the only question that matters, and I don't really care what you think about race if we agree that the answer to the above is no.

>>17970010
>Do you believe that the gap in intelligence between ethnic groups is caused, primarily, by the genetic differences between groups?
as I've already stated, the precise polygenic contribution to intellect is currently not knowable, purely because we've not yet identified all of the genetic variants which contribute to intellect
a person is given a finite set of alleles from their parents, with the population-level allele distributions from the parents constraining the range of possible genotypes (excluding outbreeding), and those alleles and genotypes define the maximum cognitive potential that the genome can support, independent of environment
given there's no mechanism ensuring perfectly equal distribution of genetic variants between racial groups, there are racial differences in IQ

what you're *still* doing is trying to move the discussion into a moot area to support the "muh socioeconomic" hypothesis, and you're going to have to accept that I'm just not interested—I'm arguing in defence of there being racial differences in IQ period, and you've given up attacking that point

you've moved from
>"race doesn't exist"
to
>"there are no differences in racial IQ"
to
>"the differences are only slight"
and my position hasn't moved even slightly
you've been pushed back, and pushed back, and you've lost the debate as far as I'm concerned

>You dropped civility first and got pissy when I did the same.
oh, this isn't me without civility, don't be absurd
so let's not name-call—I don't believe I called you names first

>>17970059
>precise polygenic contribution to intellect is currently not knowable
You've gone from
>The impact of genetics to intellect is certain and indisputable
To
> It is likely that the genes within the genetic distance probably contributes to intellect
To
>The state of the science on the subject is unknown but I'm probably right

But I'm the one with the finicky positions.

> those alleles and genotypes define the maximum cognitive potential that the genome can support, independent of environment
So lead and other chemical exposure, malnutrition, not getting a proper education, being poor, not getting medical treatment, none of these effect the "maximum cognitive potential?" By this logic I could bore a hole into someone's hippocampus and as long as they had the genes they're guaranteed to be an Einstein.

>given there's no mechanism ensuring perfectly equal distribution of genetic variants between racial groups

I answered this in >>17969417
>I would argue the inverse is true; you need to explain why diminishing intelligence was more beneficial for non Eurasians than for Eurasians. Ancient Africa and America were not paradises, and I see no reason why the people of those lands should have evolved to be less intelligent, and why Eurasians should have evolved to be more intelligent.

There is no mechanism that would drive intelligence differences, and you have not presented an alternative.

And again, you cannot assume that the genes for [TRAIT] that varies between a group are contained in the genetic difference.

You keep ignoring what I've said and running to another point because you know that I am right and are getting frustrated that you've run out of counter responses.

>>17970059
also way to dodge the question.

1.) Do you believe that the gap in intelligence between ethnic groups is caused, primarily, by the genetic differences between groups?

Why can't you answer this simple question?

>>17970136
it's already answered, anon
either you didn't understand the answer, or you didn't read clearly enough; to answer either way, whilst we're still waiting on evidence, is moot—the precise polygenetic contribution is currently not knowable, given we're aware we've not yet found all the genetic variants which contribute to intellect
is that not clear enough?

and as an addendum to my answer, I think it's equally difficult to say determinately the exact contribution from environment—with the distinction that the genetic contribution will eventually become empirically knowable, whilst the environmental contribution will likely always remain more... nebulous, and fluid
in principle, it seems to me that we should one day be able to ascertain the broad environmental simply from the negative space of the genetic, but precisely breaking down those non-genetic factors will still be iffy

>>17970133
>The impact of genetics to intellect is certain and indisputable
the impact of genetics on intellect is certain and indisputable
>It is likely that the genes within the genetic distance probably contributes to intellect
given that intelligence is highly polygenic, it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to cognitive traits differ in frequency AT ALL across populations, yes
>The state of the science on the subject is unknown but I'm probably right
the *precise* total contribution isn't known, but the current state IS known, and we can currently genetically account for ~10-15% of a person's intellect

nice mirroring of my rhetoric, but it doesn't work because my position hasn't changed

In my opinion it was effective court systems and law enforcement. Most part of the world, people are constantly at each others throats. By having effective elaw and order the eurooeans stopped internal conflict and were able to use those extra bodies and reocruces against "others". Geography helps too. Europe has a giant coastline that makes trade east. Many countries have nice solid borders via geography that makes it easier to defend themselves. Only eastern europe lacks this.

The Christian religion helps too. It unified most of europe under 1 belief system. They'd rather trade with each other than wage constant war.

Race. Europeans mightve evolved to be smarter and be more long term thinkers bc of long winters. I'm sure having higher iq is a huge advantage. Just ask the Chinese and Japanese.

>>17969476
Why not? I won, nay dominated, nay, ran circles around the genetic argument. All that's left are insults. Besides, is it really insulting? Is this post >>17961655 insulting to your position? They look the same to me. Arbitrary racial categories and cope.
>>17969458
I've dismantled this argument in probably ten different ways, so I'm not expecting acknowledgment of facts anymore. I know I've won again when you repeat yourself.

>>17970179
I'm repeating myself because you're asking the same questions I've already answered, anon
I really thought you were two different people
but this is you also:
>>17970133
?
you're the arseblasted antiwhite calling me racist names?

>>17970153
>>17970165
The statements
>the impact of genetics on intellect is certain and indisputable
and
>the precise polygenetic contribution is currently not knowable, given we're aware we've not yet found all the genetic variants which contribute to intellect
Are contradictions. It cannot be both as good as fact and something we will know about many years from now.

And anyways, I'm not asking "do we know which genes place an upper bound" I'm asking is the gap, that currently exists, primarily the product of some innate genetic cause or is it the product of environments borne through history to the present day? That is the question that you can't answer.

> it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to cognitive traits differ in frequency AT ALL across populations, yes
it's statistically extremely unlikely that NONE of the variants relevant to laser vision differ in frequency AT ALL across populations.

We cannot assume that intelligence varies just because genes do, unless we can identify the genes that would "put an upper bound" on intelligence as you call it. The crux of your argument is
>People are different
>Therefore people are different in this hyper-specific way

And that just isn't the case. It's very possible that of the genes that vary between humans, affecting surface level differences like melanin and hair shape, intelligence was not affected. It is not more or less likely to evolve just because the genes are different somewhere else. Again, this is illustrated in an earlier post >>17969351


>the current state IS known, and we can currently genetically account for ~10-15% of a person's intellect
This does not account across ethnic groups. I refer you to the image in >>17969763 for a visual example of why that is the case.

>>17970195
and no, I don't know who 17970179 is

>>17970177
>The Christian religion helps too. It unified most of europe under 1 belief system. They'd rather trade with each other than wage constant war.

Are you saying that there were no wars in the Medieval Era? Until recently europeans were fighting each other, well now too. The 2 worst wars in history have happened in Europe.

>>17970195
You should be able to recognize me by my posting style. You're exchanging GPT assisted text walls with some other anons, not me. I'm the one who demonstrated the following, in order
- IQ is irrelevant to european dominance, as it's just a descriptor of civilization
- Genes are irrelevant to race because the concept of a traditional race is meaningless on its own terms, far less genetic ones
- Genes are irrelevant to IQ because they reflect environmental conditions
>then we switched sides for awhile and I made you argue for environment while I acted like you, the "epigenetics" part
- Epigenetics are part of the normal process of mutation and change, not unique to specific bloodlines
- Genetic potential is much greater than expression in all animals, if there's an upper limit to intelligence it's not 170 or 180 but something completely unrecognizable
- That last point shows your focus on genetics as a determining factor, which doesn't even make sense, is nothing more than cargo cult behavior.

>>17959598
>>17959599
>>17959605
>WHITE POWERRRRRRRRRRRR

>>17969284
>intersectional neomarxists

>>17971663
It is the Reptilians tho

>>17958174 (OP)
Genetics, culture and location.