/lit/ - Literature

>>17307834
no

>>17307834
Not really, it's also wrong.

>>17307834
bump

>>17307834
I really don’t like that cover. Have graphic designers been huffing glue for the past 10 years?

>>17307839
>>17307836

explain

>>17308249
the entire book is a giant cope trying to argue that whites just got lucky and non-whites are not at fault for sucking at civilization.

The scramble for Africa, subsequent decolonization, and the current state of African countries is more than enough evidence that this is just globohomo brainwashing.

>>17308268
To use the site known as 4chan you must be either 18 years of age or older

>>17308268

>>17308279
>>17308273
>no counterargument
>scary word from a meme
I accept your concession.

>>17308287
These types always act like they're cool for using spooky no no words fucking hell, post your chin

>>17307834
>>17308268
The very argument it argues against is in and of itself a racist assumption
>”non western civilization is/was inferior”
He’s basically just your run of the mill neoliberal covering his inherently racist tracks with empty lip service built on an inherent lie.

Also actual anthropologists blows all of his theories the fuck out of the water with hard, physical scientific evidence. The whole way he views history is just wrong. He’s a pop journalist sophist shill do yourself a favor OP and read something by someone with a PHD in the field.

>>17307834
NOOOOOO iT'S THE GEOSOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS YOU NAZIIII AAAAAAAHHHHHH

>>17308306
Can you recommend any of those papers/counter arguments? I found the book pretty convincing and hear a lot of people condemn it, but honestly I don't know what the 'hard physical evidence' is as they never share it. I'm not against him being wrong but his arguments seemed reasonable.

He opens the book with the racist statement that primitive tribesmen in the Congo are more intelligent and “engaged” than Europeans and Americans (ie: white people), before going out of his way to prove that the “racist interpretation of history” is false, and that the reason whites dominated Africa is because whites just got lucky with their environment. It’s clearly just an anti-white book.

>>17308306
Please can someone recommend me an alternative then which lines up with current anthropological understandings

>>17308500
yeah im going to go with incoherent for 500

I'm slightly racist and hate the modern left, but I'm not right wing.

Should I read this book?

>>17308724
it will make u less racist probably

>>17308268
This.

https://twitter.com/Jotto999/status/1349364246065393664

>>17308732
ok, guess i'll skip it

>>17308770
based

>>17308770
guess u read books to prove yourself right. I'm sure you're real sharp chap

>>17308467
>but honestly I don't know what the 'hard physical evidence' is as they never share it.
Africans hadn't even invented the wheel by the time colonisation took place.

>>17308780
>guess u read books to prove yourself right
Yes.

>>17308467
Just think about it anon.

1) Africans couldn't build a civilisation strong enough to repel Europeans. Diamond blames "environmental conditions" for that even though Africa is a resource-rich continent. Fine.
2) But then once Africa became industrialised they still couldn't build a strong civilisation. I suppose Diamond would blame "the legacy of colonialism" for that?
3) But then when Africans move out of Africa to rich countries they STILL perform badly on IQ tests, educational attainment, crime, income, and so on. I guess "racism" is to blame for that?

Always when Africans show themselves to be inferior, there is an excuse made as to why that is. It doesn't matter to these people what the evidence shows -- they have taken it as an a-priori assumption that all races are equal. As long as they are able to make excuses for why the races do not perform equally, they will.

The fundamental assumption of this worldview is the "blank slate" idea of humans: we're all inherently equal in our capabilities, it is social/environmental factors that shape us into different outcomes. Life would be wonderful if that were the case, but it is not. To think that evolution by natural selection effected every aspect of our genetics EXCEPT cognitive ability is baseless and silly.
Broader understanding of this idea is prohibited because the currently reigning ideology has successfully connected the idea of different racial averages with senseless violence against innocent persons.

>>17308467
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/

>>17308881
this image would be 1000% better without the chad and the basedjak

Yeah. It's quite good

>>17308902
Agreed. I just found it yesterday. Editing it is far beyond my boomer capabilities, though, and some anon spent a few hours making it, so I'm not about to mess with his artwork anyway.

>>17308850
>>17308881
Assuming IQ tests are the be all and end all of cognitive measurement (they're not) genetics accounts for at most 50% of the variance.
You assume that the cause for differences in groups is due purely to genetics?

>>17308969
>Assuming IQ tests are the be all and end all of cognitive measurement (they're not)
this, IQ is a meme

>>17308975
I wouldn't go that far, the have merit.
It's just that often people uneducated in psychological measures assume they're the best thing since sliced bread

>>17308969
>>17308975
No, I'm not claiming that IQ tests are the be all end all of intelligence measures. They are a way to quantify intelligence, but there are many different manifestations of intelligence.
When discussing racial differences, yes, looking at IQ helps. But you can also look at the historical record. The easiest comparison is between Europeans and Africans, because the difference is so stark. By the time Europeans started the first wave of colonialism and began enslaving Africans, they had developed technology capable of traversing the world's oceans, developed stable civilizations with civil and structural engineering marvels far beyond that of Africans, and had a written corpus of knowledge that transmitted (despite periods of censorship/destruction) information beyond the bounds of a single tribe and through the passage of time. In other words, before Europeans started "holding Africans back," we had already built the Colosseum, the gothic cathedrals, the Roman aqueducts. We had Homer, Aeschylus, Livy, Plutarch, Aquinas, Dante. Inklings of the ideas of "human rights," beginnings of dramatic performance, and developments in mathematics and philosophy were all 2000 years old at that point.
By comparison, think of the civilizational achievements of sub Saharan Africans by that point. They are very few and very far between. The contrast is apparent.
Again, this doesn't equate to Hate. We're taught when we're young (at least here in the states) that thinking any negative thoughts about blacks is tantamount to stringing them up from trees. This fear shuts down most brains and causes people to ignore the obvious evidence in front of their eyes, choosing instead to have their worldview shaped by the ideology currently in control of the educational system and the centralized media companies.

>>17309058
whats this quote from in pic rel

>>17309058
>Again, this doesn't equate to Hate.
Then what is it?
What is the end purpose of claiming a group of people are inherently inferior, what do we gain from it?

>>17309078
We gain the knowledge that they are inferior, retard.

>>17307834
Worth what? Reading it? Compared to shitposting on 4chan - definitely. Even reading fucking Stephen King is better for you than this.

>>17309078
No one has to gain anything, fact is fact regardless what anyone feels or believe.

>>17309058
>>17309078

To illustrate the reasonableness of this position, here's an anecdote:
I grew up in a suburban neighborhood, maybe 30% black, the rest white. Middle class. Mostly nice, not rich, but not poor. I had black families on either side of me. Both were absolutely wonderful. They maintained their property, they were trustworthy, they were nice, they minded their own business, et cetera. Perfect neighbors.
Right now, I live between two white families. Shitty, drug addled, loud, white trash pieces of garbage.
I would take back my two black neighbors 7 days a week.
But that doesn't mean I'm incapable of recognizing patterns, doesn't mean I have to believe in childish propaganda that every single shortcoming of another race is the fault of my own people. It doesn't mean that I watch example after example of white on black violence in the news and don't bother to look up basic crime statistics. It doesn't mean I can't connect the dots.
Understanding that Africans are, on average, less intelligent than whites does not mean I hate them. I get angry when I'm told every day that their underperformance relative to every other race of man is my fault. But I don't hate them.

>What is the end purpose of claiming a group of people are inherently inferior
The narrative pushed in the educational system and by the news and entertainment industry (the majority of which are controlled by Jewish Americans, this is not a "theory," this is an easily researchable fact) is that we are all equal. Therefore, when Africans have lower test scores, higher crime rates, lower graduation rates, higher unwed pregnancies, lower incomes, higher welfare usage, etc etc, there is only one explanation: they are being held back by whites/society/capitalism/whatever. This causes whites to blame themselves for the shortcomings of others. And this ethnomasochism will only end when complete equality of outcome is achieved; in a word, never.

The worldview you've been taught and never questioned: EQUALITY is natural. Therefore, INEQUALITY is unnatural, and must be derived from group A artificially suppressing group B's natural potential.

Reality: INEQUALITY is natural. There is no scientific reason to believe that the various populations of man all magically have the same cognitive ability. This is a fool's errand, and you will find no proof of this.

Does this mean we should have INEQUALITY before the law? Of course not, anon. We should all have the same rights. The only ones who argue against this are the LARPing fags on /pol/. But equality of rights is completely separate from equality of performance.

>>17308500
>He opens the book with the racist statement that primitive tribesmen in the Congo are more intelligent and “engaged” than Europeans and Americans (ie: white people), before going out of his way to prove that the “racist interpretation of history” is false, and that the reason whites dominated Africa is because whites just got lucky with their environment. It’s clearly just an anti-white book.

This is true.

>>17309058
>>17309135
Thank you for the long posts

>>17309078
Describing reality isn't a means to any end in itself, it's merely describing reality.

>>17309125
>No one has to gain anything, fact is fact regardless what anyone feels or believe.
Statements like this reek of a complete lack of social skills.
If you have absolutely 0 reason to say something that others find aggravating other than because it's a fact then you're creating a scenario that is net negative for you?
Are you ok with making your own life more difficult purely for that sake of it? If so, why?
>>17309135
Ok.
Let's say you've convinced all white people about what you are saying. What next?
Does this justify not trying to change anything to do with black people? Is going around constantly telling an entire group of people they are inferior a fruitful enterprise?

>>17309187
See >>17309189

>>17309076
I don't know, sorry anon.

>>17309078
>This doesn't equate to Hate.
>Then what is it?
Why do Jewish Americans and Asian Americans outperform White Americans is most measurable categories? (Income, test scores, etcetc) Is it because there's some crazy conspiracy to keep us back?
No, it's because they're smarter than us in ways that contribute to socioeconomic success in this type of economy. It really is that simple. Why is it not that simple for the races that UNDERperform whites in America? You're taught it's because blacks are discriminated against in America. In reality, they are given a leg up in most situations, and still underperform.
Blacks are targeted by police? See picrel. Also remember that blacks commit over 50% of the violent crime in America, and interact with police much more than whites, so have more opportunity to suffer police brutality.
Blacks are discriminated against by the educational system?
https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/
Negative. They get into the same colleges we do with, on average, 200 points lower on their SATs. They are helped, not discriminated against.
Discrimination in employment? I don't even need to cite a source for this. The federal government (largest employer in America), every state government, and every company in the Fortune 500 has an affirmative action/"diversity" policy that hires based on race, helping them yet again.
You are taught they are discriminated against at every level of society and in every corner of the economy. The OPPOSITE is true; they are given a leg up, given special considerations, given help. And they still underperform Latinos, Jews, Asians, etc.
Understanding this does not mean you hate them, want to commit violence against them, want to take away their right to vote.
Understanding this means you are starting to understand that, like every single place and every single time throughout all of human history, you are growing up under a reigning ideology that controls information for the majority of people in the society. And parts of this ideology are not true.

>>17309199
>>17309135
based, well written, non /pol/ tier effortposter. /lit/ needs more like you

>>17309189
Anon, I have to run. I'm sorry I am unable to continue our conversation.
I wish you the best. As long as you think that understanding differences between races equates to living with smoldering hate in your heart, you will refrain from viewing the world objectively. Do not fall for that trap. Assess the world based upon empirical evidence, trustworthy data, and a calm and rational mind. It is overwhelming, infuriating, saddening, and isolating. But it is also liberating and strengthening, and nothing is more important than understanding reality.

>>17308532
^^^^^^^^

>>17308850
>Diamond blames "environmental conditions" for that even though Africa is a resource-rich continent.
You do realize those environmental conditions aren't about the supposed "resources" but the actual living conditions?
It wasn't called the Black Continent because there were niggers you know, but because it was actually fucking hard as shit to just explore, chart and survive in it for the most part, it was an absolutely brutal environment.
And natural resources are worth shit if they're impossible to harvest in the first place, we've been sitting on oil for millennia and only recently we've been able to harvest it.

The second implication about adverse environmental conditions is the following:
What happens when the territory doesn't lend itself to something as simple as travel? Isolation, limited cultural exchanges, limited commerce, all of which result in stunted development.
When you look at the history of mediterranean societies or really just the great empires of mankind, the first thing you notice is the circulation of resources, commerce and cultural exchange between different civilizations.
The roman empire grew up to be what it was not because human beings born on italian soil were somehow genetically predisposed to that, it was because the environmental factors were advantageous as hell, conversely, why do you think there was nothing like an Abo empire? Because they were stuck on a godforsaken rock in the middle of nowhere.
Seriously, aren't people being taught geography at school nowadays?

>>17309189
Your argument is the dominant thought in all modern science/politics/entertainment etc. That we should forego truth for the sake of social cohesion.
But as we have seen social cohesion gets worse when the truth is not a pillar of society because not only we do not get to the root of the problem but also its a slippery slope because now, anything goes

>>17309235
How unfortunate.
Notice I never said that the races are the same, once.
You come across quite honestly as some kind of honeypot here to convince the autists and socially inept to look down on black people because "facts".

Once again I'll pose this question to anyone willing to answer.
Say that you successfully convince society that these facts are true.
Does this justify not trying to change anything to do with the way black people live? If so, what utility does that serve to the rest of american society?
Also
What is fruitful about telling an entire group of people that they are inferior for reasons entirely out of their control?

>>17309270
Answer the questions>>17309278

>>17309264
>Abo empire?

maybe because they burned down all of australia's forests because they were too stupid to hunt

>>17309264
Environmental factors are just that, factors. They're not the alpha and omega of human history. Human ingenuity, perseverance, will and wit are as big factors as the environment if not bigger
I posted this on the last thread about this book too, but if you really want an argument this is a good, well researched video to watch
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Tba5Z946VaC6/

Why would the average african do things like the europeans when nature provide him with everything he needed?? He could wake up, grab what he need to eat and do whatever he wanted the whole day, hunt with some pals, fuck bitches or whatever, without worrying about the climate fucking everything; isnt it what everyone strives for, isnt it what people who get rich from the lottery or things like that do, isnt it what people keep blabbering about what they would do if they didnt have to work all day like slaves, isnt it what some of you in this very site talk about wanting to leave everything behind and live in the woods? Well in most of Africa you could do just that without having to worry about diseases and bullshit ideas like christianity brought by the europeans that had no place in the lives of theses people to begin with and actually made everything worse for them. Living frugaly is the best thing anyone can do, the current way of life is what is wrong.

>>17309278
>Does this justify not trying to change anything to do with the way black people live? If so, what utility does that serve to the rest of american society?
>Also
>What is fruitful about telling an entire group of people that they are inferior for reasons entirely out of their control?
Because its the truth, we shouldn't sacrifice the truth for false, feel-good interpretations of the world that in the end don't even work. Let me ask you this. Why do the solutions to the problems of the black community have to start from a place of lies? Why tell young black kids that the only reason why they're poor and living in misery is the white man? What purpose does that serve for social cohesion?

>>17309297
>Muh leftists
>Muh genes
>Incapable of making diachronic analysis by seriously comparing mesopothamic empires with european cultures that developed centuries after those empires crumbled
Yeah, no thanks, I'm not gonna keep watching your 3 hours long dumb rant about gene religion and your own "serendipity", mr. "Cis White Male with Extra Privilege".

>>17309334
You haven't answered my questions at all, all you've done is attempt to pretend they don't matter, when they very much do.

As for your questions, I am not here to defend the current state of things. What I am doing is trying to understand why it is that you think you particular changes will result in a net benefit for society (real benefits, not some moralistic WE MUST KNOW THE TRUTH benefits).
Why? Because if you can't sit here and explain exactly why these changes are for the genuine benefit of American society, then you must have some other motivation for suggesting them.

>>17309345
This desu that video is cringe
>Well even if Jared diamond is right doesn't mean I'm wrong!!1!
Cope harder

>>17309345
nice strawman you fucking tard, watch the video or shut up

>>17309345
>mr. "Cis White Male with Extra Privilege".

>>17309376
Reeee harder autist, there's more to life that being factual correct

>>17309361
Your questions are silly to begin with and i answered them, you just didn't get it but ill try again
>Does this justify not trying to change anything to do with the way black people live? If so, what utility does that serve to the rest of american society?
I specifically said: "Why do the solutions to the problems of the black community have to start from a place of lies?", i didn't say we shouldn't seek solutions, only that these solutions shouldn't be based on lies because then they're not real solutions.

>What is fruitful about telling an entire group of people that they are inferior for reasons entirely out of their control?
The fruitful thing is that they don't feel disenfranchised and aggressive towards a society that can't stop sucking their dick because they live under the pretense that they are 100% equal with everyone else but their situation is worse because they are the victims of this intangible, inescapable thing called "whiteness" or racism or whatever. That is why the truth is essential aside from the moral part of it. Because it forces you to create real solutions

>>17309370
Give me a single reason why I should keep watching a video by someone who, in the first 10 minutes of a 3 hours long video, shows to be incapable of doing something as simple as a diachronic analysis, which is taught in your first fucking year of university?
Why should I give somebody who, literally naming himself Cis White Male with Extra Privilege, is evidently fueled by political bias and SJW sentiments more than actual bias?
Why should I take anyone who says "B...but Jared has no "Sources"!111! Suggested readings are no "sources"!!1 and then immediately refuse to use sources for his own arguments.
Why would I consider any of his drivel when he seriously, LITERALLY compares the domestication capabilities of primitive societies to experiments made by the URSS as a way to disprove that primitive societies attempted everything humanly possible to domesticate animals back then (while also conveniently only mention animals after explicitly showing how Diamond meant both animals AND plants)?

And this is all in the first 10 minutes of a 3 hours long video, sorry but I'm over 30 years old and I don't have time to deal with armchair internet "historians" with evidently dubious credentials, if any at all, and even more dubious argumentations.

I sincerely hope all of you who are so fixated on inferiority and superiority, and facts being facts come to grips with yourselves.
Have a long hard think about what utility going around telling others they're inferior really serves, how would people react and how those reactions would make your country a better place to live

>>17309426
>The fruitful thing is that they don't feel disenfranchised and aggressive
What?
How out of touch can you possibly be?
Imagine everyday you leave your house people remind you that you are inferior to them and you can't change it.
You won't feel disenfranchised? You won't feel aggressive towards them?
Somehow it'll make you like them more?
Get a grip pal

>>17309393
retard

>>17309445
You think that lying to them and turning them against whites resulting in literal physical violence is somehow better than telling the ugly truth and trying to fix their problems. Bro you are dense and i don't know what else to say to you.

>>17309431
>what utility going around telling others they're inferior really serves
No one is doing that. That's not the point. Nice strawman. We're allowed to discuss genes, race, and identity. It's always the dumbest people who have a problem with that.

>>17309429
your questions would be answered if you only watched the fucking video but you're too much of a retard. If you don't want to watch it then don't nobody gives a fuck
Also, since you're really anal about the name of the account that uploaded the mirror video then here it is from the real account
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQ/

>>17309445
The point is not to constantly tell people "u r dum". Its so that when the black community pushes too hard, white people don't immediately fold like lawnchairs. You may not like this, but being a pushover never leads to peaceful relations in the long run.

>>17308969
wrong reading of the literature, serious scholars mostly go for 80% nowadays

>>17308249
Its against eurocentrism while still being heavily eurocentric, its a bad book

>>17309189
It's not about telling them that they are inferior, it's about banning refugees and exporting them back to Africa to swim in their own shit and having a good reason for it.

>>17309264
That's just the problem though: Diamond doesn't argue in favor of environmental factors. He doesn't even really need to argue that environment>genes/culture/whatever, he just needs to argue that the environment has an effect at all, and he doesn't. In fact, throughout the book, he argues that Africans actually had BETTER environmental conditions than Europeans. Africa isn't entirely jungle, nor is it entirely desert. In fact, the sheer size of the enormous open spaces is more daunting to "civilization" than forests or deserts.

Diamond isn't trying to argue that Africans had it hard, he's trying to argue against Europeans have anything good about them; that Europeans cheated. The Zebra argument is a demonstration of this.

>>17308249
Well for starters I don't think it addresses how certain European groups (the supposedly geographically privileged) got BTFO pretty much forever by their neighbours (Celts, Basques, Balts). Also (((Jared))) makes no reference to race:IQ IIRC, but it's been years since I read it.

>>17308881
Based, Keyed, Locked.

>>17309264
You wrote this whole response to a point which I clearly conceded in my post?
The point I was making is that, even if Africans were not able to develop at first due to environmental pressures, even if we grant this, it still doesn't explain why Africans (a) continued to live in shitholes even after Africa was industrialised and (b) continue scoring low on IQ tests, educational attainment, income, and high on crime even after they leave Africa and live in rich countries.
If Africans, after industrialisation and globalisation, were able to build up strong nations, and if they performed equally to other races when they moved out of Africa, then we could say, sure, biology probably played no part in their being defeated and colonised by other races. But this is simply not the case. Anywhere Africans go, any environment they live in, they perform worse than other races. This means that Africans are biologically inferior since even when the environmental factor is disregarded they still show themselves to be inferior.

>>17308467
>>17308532
This should get you on the right track.
>>17308850 don’t listen to this retard,

Africa had a number of advanced pre industrial societies same as Asia and the Americas and there’s massive ruins on all the continents that show this. Likewise, geographically speaking Europe is not particularly resource abundant. Europe’s biggest benefit over the rest of the world though was Christianity in a variety of ways which I can get into if anyone’s interested. Diamond, a Jew, cannot cope with this either.

>>17309926
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/empires-of-medieval-west-africa-ghana-mali-and-songhay_david-c-conrad/1531265/item/43078097/?mkwid=%7cdm&pcrid=448918240737&pkw=&pmt=&slid=&plc=&pgrid=104755242616&ptaid=pla-927269736418&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5trVn62j7gIV0R6tBh2xDgV4EAQYAiABEgKqmvD_BwE#idiq=43078097&edition=3387581

>>17309752
Interestingly, Diamond used to be very much into what we could call proto-HBD. At one point he was discussing the correlation between testicle size (proportional to body) and twinning. This apparently shows up in various other mammals but there's no conclusive evidence of it in humans, and Diamond argued that the higher (proportional) testicle size of certain African groups (these are relatively small people however, so the total size of their testicles is quite small) AND these groups having higher rates of twinning is indicative of this phenomena occurring in humans.

It's been speculated for years that this book is a massive academic mea culpa on his part to make up for his prior beliefs in biology.

>>17309776
Africa is a big continent there’s plenty of beautiful modern cities besides rural squalor. There’s no real argument that they can’t develop and maintain these civilization like everyone else.

>>17309776
>it still doesn't explain why Africans (a) continued to live in shitholes even after Africa was industrialised
Because they were consistently treated like slaves and generally inferior by several colonial governments and whites, nothing to do with biology, and shitholes are everywhere, not just Africa.
>continue scoring low on IQ tests
IQ means literally nothing, it's a cope for midwits and literally a religious cult, much like gene worship.
>educational attainment, income, and high on crime
Again, see point 1.
This is an argument made against pretty much any ethnicity at some point, americans especially loved to peddle the same claims regarding the italian, chinese and irish, saying that they were naturally predisposed for crime and all that jazz, look at the registered japanese rates for crimes and you'll curiously see the same phenomenon but for chinese and korean, the outsider is always the cause of all problems no matter where you go, because all cultures need to have their scapegoats to justify the myth of national identity.
>If Africans, after industrialisation and globalisation, were able to build up strong nations
Strong nation as in? How can you even build strong nations when you've been constantly bullied by invaders and had your entire ethnicity treated as biological pariah for centuries to this day on top of having your own resources razed and your entire geopolitical grounds ransacked?
What kind of ass backwards logic is this?
How in the everloving fuck are you even trying to equate a supposed biological inferiority to historical and sociopolitical grounds?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
The Hamish are as "white" as they come and they willingly seclude themselves into backwards luddite shitholes, do you think that's driven by "biological" factors?
How old are you?

>>17310099
Yes, this is what I said in my first post.

Africans scream ooga booga and shit in holes until they get colonised by more developed Europeans.
>It's environmental conditions!

Africa becomes industrialised and Europeans leave but the countries continue to be shitholes.
>It's the legacy of colonialism!

Africans move out of Africa to rich countries where they can't be held back by "colonialism", only to once again prove themselves inferior, unintelligent, and violent.
>It's because of racism!

Just excuse after excuse. Blacks are inferior everywhere they go, so everywhere they go a new excuse is made for them. This is why Borges said "their only virtue is that they have been downtrodden". When are you going to stop with the rationalisations and accept the fact that you're a nigger?

>>17310099
>The Hamish are as "white" as they come and they willingly seclude themselves into backwards luddite shitholes
this is how you know we can discard this post

Lysenkoist nonsense.
No.
It’s like cutting a slice of pie, throwing the rest of the pie in the trash, and then saying that the slice of pie you have is an entire pie

>>17308747
second this

>>17308287
>>17308273

>>17308747
/thread

>>17309278
if they are inferior then the superior race can throw them out and prosper more since they do not have to carry an inferior race on their back.

>>17310174
WHITEY STILL HOLLIN US DOWN

>>17307834
Yeah worth shoving it up your ass and reading a normal history book instead lmao

>>17308747
>Diamond says ”in mental ability, New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners”.
Lol really

>>17310174
It’s such a ridiculous argument to say that Europeans ravaged their resources.
Africa is incredibly resource rich, and still is. The Congo river and rainforest alone contain more natural resources than pretty much any other country apart from Brazil.
And if the resources were “ravaged” then why would China want to be in Africa?

>>17307834
I'd only read it for annecdotes and to get a grasp of the current anti-racist zeitgeist, not as an actually useful explanation for why the world is the way it is.
Pic related, recent (past 2000 years) selection on a bunch of traits in the UK - "eduyears", i.e. likelyhood you stay longer in school (e.g. intelligence), along with lighter hair and skin, have been selected for. Humans have been diverging from each other for at least 60,000 years, and that must be accounted for in any theory.

>>17310245
it's Cope: the Neoreligion

>>17307834
Its impossible to trust Jewish authors, because they are absolutely hell-bent on denying reality to some extend. He gets correctly the fact, that if Africans had had the might the Europeans had, they'd have also tried to dominate and conquer, but it completely ignores the fact this was not a matter of bad luck, but of lack of capacity.

>>17307834
Literally only good as toilet paper. It's the best book if you want to understand how hard pop "scientists" are willing to cope to the NWO narrative. Other than that, it's the most mind numbing sophistry that helps them avoid obvious reality of why some groups succeed and others don't

no, it's literal fan fiction

>>17310245
Obviously the Chinese are poisoned with aspirational whiteness.

>>17307834
>>17308467
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/

>>17310944
checked

>>17309058
Something tells me average IQ of a population is irrelevant for technological growth. Many of the innovations of the early modern period were produced by a few outlier geniuses.

>>17311002
>https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/
based Cochran

>>17309298
You're right. Africa is humanity's natural homeland. One doesn't need to create vast farms to thrive. It's pretty clear now that farms are rather destructive to the environment and they cause large population growths. The nail in humanity's coffin might just be our overpopulation thanks to farming. I'm surprised people always shit on Africans for being primitive when it seems there are quite a few Kaczynskifags on /lit/.

>>17312051

>>17312080
>letter to Joyce
this is a meme, right? Or did they actually have correspondence?

>>17307834
I liked it, but more for the wealth of historical information presented about the development of civilization and the different types of societies from theoughout the world. His assertion that the new guinean hunter gatherers are just as intelligent as civilized people is based purely on anecdote and also comes across as a little absurd. He's right about differences in geography and flora and fauna allowing for the differences in development of civilizations, but his claims that all people are fundamentally equal in terms of ability is clearly wrong. that being said, he's near to the truth. if you put new guineans in the sort of environment that great civilizations started in, after several generations they would likely begin to develop the abilities of other peoples and a civilization of their own

Heres the go to image

>>17308770
based

>>17308969
Inheritance is supposed to account for nearly 80% of the variation in IQ now

>>17308279
>physiognomy is incorrect and racist, but let me use a physiognomic caricature of a spiteful mutant to depict you
I wonder how it feels to wake up each day, bliss fading into misery as you remember what you are.

>>17309264
Yeah people underrate the grand, impersonal forces that shape our lives and they like to suppose it comes from themselves primarily due to ego.
Sea trade was a massive advantage to Rome. Its no coincidence that the greatest African civilizations are in the North and not deep within the continent.

>>17307834
>White people ain't shit, and here's why
>by Israel Goldberg

>>17309298
Based and an-prim pilled

>>17308850
>Always when Africans show themselves to be inferior, there is an excuse made as to why that is. It doesn't matter to these people what the evidence shows -- they have taken it as an a-priori assumption that all races are equal. As long as they are able to make excuses for why the races do not perform equally, they will.

it´s the black man´s burden, they would fare better living in the jungle than in a civilized society, for the old colonialists that was common knowledge

>>17312657
>>17312628
lol
>>17312603
pretty much

>>17308268
This guy is right and has actually read the book.

>>17308279
>>17308249
Listen to the podcast Sam Harris did with Diamond. They cover the basic flaw of his book and Jared squirms and looks the fool. He ends up basically saying "yeah western man has science and technology and philosophy but the Papuan pygmys are good at cracking open coconuts and co-operatively killing wild animals.

>>17311903
That's because you don't know much about statistical distributions.

>Assuming a normal distribution with mean = 100 and std deviation = 15:
0.3% of the population have an IQ greater than 140

>But if this mean IQ is slightly lower, say 90:
0.04% of the population have an IQ higher than 140

I.e. an increase in average IQ by only 10 points results in 7.5x more geniuses in the population.

Keep in mind that the difference in IQ between some races may be as large as 50 points or more.

>>17309278
If it's true (it is) that there are significant differences in IQ between races, then much of current idpol political discourse is seriously undermined. For example---and there is evidence for this---it may that all of the racial income disparity in the U.S. is accounted for by racial IQ disparity. Then, under what grounds does affirmative action make sense? Most equality-minded people currently base much of their beliefs on a 'tyranny of the gaps', where any gap between groups is attributed to tyranny, usually from a society that favours the 'straight, white male'. Removing the single-minded pursuit of equality of outcome would have huge implications on how our society would be organised.

>>17308268
Kek kikes seething at anon saying the truth

>>17309135
>my own people
>the majority of which are controlled by Jewish Americans

Like clockwork, the truth begins to slip through the cracks.

>>17309278
>honeypot
and you sound like an out-of-touch outsider when you misuse the word like that.
>what is fruitful about telling the truth
good lord you must be a kike

>>17310099
Honestly the most reddit post I've read on this board. Learn how to make a point without constant swearing and asking rhetorical questions.

>>17309462
>>17309470
>>17309588
>>17309655
Cringelords

>>17308197
Graphic designer here.

No.

They’re all fucking lazy.

>>17310189
>>17313216
>For example---and there is evidence for this---it may that all of the racial income disparity in the U.S. is accounted for by racial IQ disparity.
>>17313336
More cringelords

>>17313667
get the fuck outta here science denier

>>17313649
No arguments. I hate the left for preferring to lie so that people can feel good. Lying is what led millions of people to die under Communism. So that's what you are, Liars.

>>17309393
>the absolute state of leftoids

>>17309972
Ive seen iq studies that show certain groups of Africans (e.g. Igbo) being whole standard deviations above their neighbors. Eventually this peaceful world order will collapse and the smart niggers will be selected for while the dumb niggers are killed/starve. Thats the same process thats happened to most other Asian/European groups as well.

>>17314154
I'm not denying science cringelord, I'm laughing at you for your extremely confined views.
Do me a favour, post an image of crime statistics by race and socioeconomic standing, I'm sure you have one.
>>17314333
Cringe.
I have arguments and I've given them over and over, it's just that you have some socially inept fixation on "truth" with no real regard for the outcomes of your actions beyond "reeee idpol"

All you cringelords view this topic as a binary, you're either with me or against me, when it's not. I agree with neither party entirely because I'm not a halfwit who only regurgitates the "facts" others feed to them.

>>17308268
I read the book in school. Can confirm this is true

>>17307834
It's decent. Francis Fukayama's Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Decay are better and introduce all his ideas and ideas from across political philosophy, sociology, and economics.

It's the best work on nation state development out there.

This and Why Nations Fail are worth reading for their various points, but you could also just read a summary and get the main idea.

>>17314373
its nilotes vs bantus
nilotes are like the aryans of africa and bantus are the dasyu

>>17313216
Except your argument is btfo by Asians such as Koreans coming here with nothing but the shirts on their backs and becoming some of the highest earning groups in the US. Honestly, it makes more sense that smarter people tend to rise up over time, than the environment am hogwash youre proposing. Remember, intelligence is 80% genetic

>>17314384
Stfu liar. How can I argue with someone who denies reality? I might as well go to an insane asylum (where ironically a lot of Antifa belongs)

>>17314384
>Oh no Berniebro's, we got too cocky!

>>17314384
>i'm laughing
it's always the same with you frauds

>>17308279
t.

>>17314384

>>17314384
but the joke's on you

>>17310179
I've been reading alot of the European chronicles of late 19th century Africa and its amazing how this kind of matches up with what most of them described. Keeping in mind, most of these writers were missionaries/activist types who were trying to help these African societies.

the events leading up to Rhodes and the BSAC taking over what would become Rhodesia are pretty fascinating. Selous' book is gold.

Many Bantu rulers believed that "bad things" happened not because of their own decisions or outside circumstances but due to "witches" and "bad magic". So if a Bantu chief/king made a bad decision that resulted in the tribe losing land to Whites or a rival tribe they would respond by "smelling out" witches amongst their own people and executing a large number of people to "fix" the problem that had occurred. It is kind of strange how little was known of cause and effect by these groups. If there was a dry season the king and his indunas (elders) might respond to it by ordering a few dozen random people to be killed. In the Great Lakes region (like modern Uganda) there are stories that kings ended up killing hundreds of their own tribal members in these random rituals. These were not the carefully choreographed religious sacrifice rituals of the Aztecs or Andrean civilizations, this was literally the king saying "the white men have settled on the fertile side of the river. i know what we must do..." and then sending out the warriors back into the villages to beat to death the first 100 people they come across.

>>17309298
The pre-colonial societies of Africa didn't "live frugally", this is a rehash of the noble savage myth. Read up about the southern Bantu especially the Zulu, these groups had already exhausted the fertility, animal herds and woodlots of the region by the time the Boers/British showed up. Even today most of those areas have pitiful agricultural returns.

>>17314384
>you have some socially inept fixation on "truth" with no real regard for the outcomes of your actions
Whether or not variations in IQ exist between races is a separate issue as to what should (if anything) be done about it. It seems like you're almost willing to concede that some races have low IQ but you're held back by 1) an excess of compassion that causes an aversion to uncomfortable truths (common in women and effeminate men); and 2) a fear of the implications that knowledge of these truths will have on society (presumably due to a fear of reversion back to slavery or other mistreatment of certain races). This latter point is a genuine concern and a much more interesting discussion than the usual leftist denial of the facts of race and IQ.

More African redpills

Nongqawuse and the cattle killing prophet "this little girl says she talked to some dead guy. he had a message: if we want the white men to go away we only need to two do simple things: kill all our cattle and destroy all our crops. its magic i dont gotta explain shit bro"

Bulhoek massacres aka "black jesus told us we are invincible to bullets and only need to fight with sticks. just charge them bros"

Maji Maji Rebellion aka "this magic plant will protect you form the white man's bullets, just charge the maxims bro"

>>17314680
Your cringe is only matched by your delusion.
Highlight to me where I've "denied IQ differences between races" sunshine

>>17314652
Yeah, sounds like a book i read called The African Dream by Brian Gardner.
The early European explorers WANTED "wakanda" to exist. They wanted to find the city of gold and get rich trading with an advanced civilization. First contact with Africa was a big disappointment for the explorers.

>>17314790
you come across as a disingenuous, bitter person who has no intention of engaging anyone here in good faith, no matter how many times you are proven to be factually incorrect.

>>17314831
Very interesting book rec, thank you anon. i haven't heard of that one but i looked it up and seems interesting. just ordered a used copy on amazon

>>17314885
glad to oblige a fellow scientist

>>17314790
Your reading comprehension appears to be lacking so I'll try simplify the gist of what I'm saying:
>I am aware that you know there are IQ differences between races
>you naturally don't like this fact nor the people who espouse it, and so you take pleasure in calling them socially inept, cringelords etc. (this is your emotional response)
>your emotional response is accompanied by a half-assed logical response that alludes to the societal trouble that might arise if people were to widely accept the facts of race and IQ
>But your emotional response is the real reason for your convictions and the logical response is just a front so you can maintain the illusion of rationality while being governed by your emotions (this is a very feminine phenomenon)
>if you actually were interested in rationally discussing the societal implications of race and IQ disparity you would have engaged with the several posts about the issue rather than ignoring them and calling everyone cringelords

>>17315066
checked but see
>>17314863

>>17314456
>Except your argument is btfo by Asians such as Koreans coming here with nothing but the shirts on their backs and becoming some of the highest earning groups in the US.
Poor people who migrate to the United States usually still remain poor. The reason Asians are the highest earning group in the United States is because you need to be wealthy (which means you're most likely educated) to actually leave those Asian countries to pursue a life in the United States.
>Remember, intelligence is 80% genetic
No one knows how much of a factor genetics play in intelligence.

>>17315066
>But your emotional response is the real reason for your convictions and the logical response is just a front so you can maintain the illusion of rationality while being governed by your emotions (this is a very feminine phenomenon)
The irony here is incredible.
This very statement applies to you as well, you're just blissful unaware of it.

>>17315172
>i know you are but what am I
like pottery

>>17315172
Not really the case for me, although you may have mistaken me for other replies in this thread. I don't really have much emotional investment in this issue and I live in a country where race relations isn't nearly as big of an issue as in other parts of the world. I'm mostly here for an actual decent discussion---4chan is actually one of the few places you can discuss this sort of taboo topic---but I think it's clear now that I won't get that from you. You're literally just here just to ineffectually insult people.

>>17312212
This is probably the best post in this thread. I don't think Diamond finds the complete truth. His anecdotal evidence comes off as virtue signaling at times, but the main idea that he argues I think is pretty well developed. You could probably put any group of people in areas where great civilizations developed and get similar, if not the same, results.

>>17315325
>You could probably put any group of people in areas where great civilizations developed and get similar, if not the same, results
Yes, over a long enough time period. But the main point that Diamond failed to acknowledge is the fact that groups of people have evolved differently based on selection for different traits (their environment no doubt having a key role to play here), and this has resulted in significant genetic differences between groups of people.

>>17315325
ah, the old magic dirt fallacy.

>>17315325
Given enough centuries of course lol. Don't be so dense.

>>17315287
If you're here for a discussion then answer the questions I posted earlier

>>17314744
>Nongqawuse and the cattle killing prophet

wow i just read the wiki article on this. holy crap lol

I know he's flat out wrong on the gun part. The gun wasn't shit for colonial armies, it's always been steel and horses that are the game changer. The Comanche were able to completely inhibit Spanish attempts of securing the American Southwest because of horses and bows and it's more disease and the revolver that allowed the Texans/Americans to push back on the comanche too. There's nothing magical about the musket when it comes to lightly equipped natives. Spaniards in De Soto's expedition tested Floridian Indian bows and found at 50ft they could pierce through two mail corselets.

>"When 200 [Indians] had shot, they retired themselves and gave place to the rest that were behind, and all the while had their eye and foot so quick and ready, that as soon as ever they saw the arquebuses laid to the cheek, so soon were they on the ground, and as soon up to answer with their bows, and to fly their way, if by chance they perceived we were abouit to overtake them: For there is nothing they fear so much, because of our swords and daggers.
>René Goulaine de Laudonnière

"They shoot their arrows with such force that they pass through the soldiers' clothing and coats of mail, and the Indians are very quick in shooting. Once a soldier has discharged an arquebus, he cannot reload it before the Indian, on account of his fleetness, comes up with him and fires 4 or 5 arrows at him: And while he is putting in the powder to prime it, the Indian withdraws through the woods and high grass and watches for the instant when the powder takes fire: then he stops and...crawls along through the grass, and when the arquebus is fired, he rises in a different psot from where he aws when the soldier sought to take aim at him"
>Gonzalo Solis de Meras

This thread is a dumpster fire. None of the pol mongoloids who fill this their with their copy pasted propaganda have read the book. Diamond's views on race and history are irrelevant because they have no bearing on the argument of the book, which everyone who actually read even small part of it would know.

He specifically looks at the evolution of societies that are racially identical but settled different environments because he acknowledges that racial theories exist. He also only deals with the genesis of civilisations, not their development after their establishment. Every post in this thread that refers to either race or history exposes its poster as a brain dead parrot.

I'm not saying Diamond is right about everything. I'm saying that the people criticing him are essentially morons.

What is the highest recorded Bantu IQ? I know the Xhosa are around 78/79 or so on average. Khoi san admixture likely helped drag them down. Seems about right given their cultural "achievements"

>>17315398
It took centuries for people in Europe to create great civilizations, if you replaced people of European ancestry 200,000 years ago and let them live in Europe, you'd most likely get very similar societies.
>>17315382
>magic dirt
that's a very reductive view of the argument
>>17315355
> But the main point that Diamond failed to acknowledge is the fact that groups of people have evolved differently based on selection for different traits (their environment no doubt having a key role to play here), and this has resulted in significant genetic differences between groups of people.
Does he argue in the book that people aren't genetically different? I'm pretty sure he acknowledges that the harsher nature of Africa made it so that people adapted to have different skills, mainly with survivability in mind.

>>17315443
Yeah no lol
You got filtered pretty hard it seems.

>>17315451
Yep, many centuries or more of enviromental and sexual selection driving evolutionary change. The Australian aborigines would likely need a very long time in a different enviroment to undergo the kind of evolutionary pressures that eould be needed to raise their general IQ.

>>17307834
If you want an actual critique of this book that isn't addled by an obsession with race: basically, he is incredibly determinist. He assumes that we can deduce the causes of all history through what we know of the environmental conditions that shaped them. According to this idea, a million worlds, all with the same starting conditions, would all end in the same place. This type of hard environmental determinism makes perfect sense from his perspective as a geologist trained in environmental history, but is very disputed among historians, anthropologists, etc. He has very little training or education as a historian or anthropologist. Most historians dedicate a lifetime of study to understand just a tiny, specific scope of time and location, and Jared Diamond assumes that he alone, through his sheer power of deduction and observation, can explain the full course of human society, and in an incredibly simplistic way that generalizes the world into two categories: the traditional perception of the "West" (middle-east -> classical antiquity -> medieval Europe -> early modern Europe -> today) and the entire rest of the world. Whether you like the book or not, it is exactly the type of poorly substantiated pop-history that ends up on bestseller lists and makes real historians seethe. I didn't read this whole thread so sorry if someone has already posted something similar.

>>17314652

My experience with the 19th century is limited to a wargaming book I got on East african armies, but the author is really informed and well sourced. I was shocked by how much the bone-in-nose naked ooga-boogas was literally true. I got it expecting the beja and mad mullah and Sudanese Mahdi, but turned out the book was focused on the Kenya-Tanzania area. And these guys were completely butt-naked primitive. My ignorant misconception figured the Kongo would be the darkest deepest most primitive africa but turned out it was the area right next to Zanzibar.

>>17314673
It kills me that I lost a book I got at a used book store in college that went into the history of South Africa, and mentioned how Bantu-Khoisan wars in the 1700s and early 1800s had the Europeans being an afterthought despite their involvement on this side or that side. Bantu Khoisan just fucking hated eachother guts.

>>17314831
Power Faith and Fantasy covers a similar phenomenon with the Middle East. Despite being a durkaboo I am cognizant of how much orientalism flavors our erroneous perceptions of the Middle East's past. Up until the 1980s onward it flavored our present perception but now people think of it less in atavistic Arabian niightts and more in terms of liveleak.com.

>>17315472
>The Australian aborigines would likely need a very long time in a different enviroment to undergo the kind of evolutionary pressures that eould be needed to raise their general IQ.
I doubt it would take long if you gave those people adequate education. The children of poor immigrants always end up smarter than their parents. I'm not denying that your genetics aren't a factor in how smart you become, but I think it's definitely overstated. The average person who grows up in a civilized society isn't very bright either, it doesn't seem hard to match the intelligence of a normie if you're given the same resources.

>>17308279
>t.

>>17315538
Another person who hasn't read it.

Yes, Diamond engages I those speculations. But they are not what the book is about.

>>17315544
Yep pre-colonial black Africa outside of the prosperous West African trading states and the European settled Cape was literally "naked cannibal bone thru the nose" tier. No written languages, no complex societies, low level "fetish" belief systems, widespread cannibalism and slavery. Nasty time and place

>white people are genetically more intelligent
>Idea of intelligence predicated on IQ test
Anyone who believes this is a massive flop

>>17315400
I already have and you avoided the discussion but I'll elaborate:
>Say that you successfully convince society that these facts are true. Does this justify not trying to change anything to do with the way black people live? If so, what utility does that serve to the rest of american society? Also
What is fruitful about telling an entire group of people that they are inferior for reasons entirely out of their control?

I agree with you 100% that it is only desirable for this truth to be widespread if there is a benefit (short or long term) to doing so. I do not advocate for declaring to the masses of black people that they are inferior, or to the masses of the white people that they are superior. I do not even believe this to be the case, because a higher IQ does not make an individual fundamentally more valuable than another.

Instead, it would be best if the facts of race and IQ were allowed to simply exist without active repression. Stop actively silencing and erasing anyone who concedes this fact to be true (e.g. James Watson) and let it become a gradually accepted part of public thought.

The utility of doing so lies in the reversal of the untrue a priori assumption that all races are equal, and therefore should perform equally well in capitalist society. Current political division in the U.S. is not caused by the belief that blacks are inferior, but rather by the belief that they are being oppressed. The widespread acceptance of this fundamentally untrue belief has in turn caused white people to feel marginalised and resulted in escalating conflict and greater political polarisation (see Trump).

If these facts were accepted, perceptions of unfairness caused by capitalist society and racial oppression would be reduced and detract from destabilising political movements like ethno-nationalism and socialism. Morally questionable things like racial hiring quotas that are in place to counteract systematic racism would cease to make sense. Hatred towards police / authority that causes significant instability (see 2020) would lack credibility.

I could go on

>>17308249
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQ/

/thread

>>17315545
>I doubt it would take long if you gave those people adequate education.
i recommend you give this a listen my friend
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OIinyYwmB04/
>>17315610
G factor intelligence is an accurate predictor of life success by objective metrics, end of story.

Anon just asked if the book worth and y'all started to punch faces like damn monkeys, just answer the question with arguments and not like "hey I think, I believe, I heard", that ain't and argument so put the damn name of the verified sources against Diamond in order to compare info and then make a decision. Ain't that difficult.

>>17315650
>>17315400
(cont.)
But the main thing, and this is key, is that emphasis be detracted from viewing people in the lens of racial groups at all. It need not be a significant fact that some racial groups have higher IQ than others if the emphasis is instead placed on the individual. In this lies the true evil of identity politics.

I don't think it is far-fetched that this fact could exist in society without leading to more racial conflict than already exists (and hopefully much less). After all, no one seems to feel too upset about the higher IQs and corresponding financial success of Jews (in fact, most of the problems people have with Jews seems to arise from the denial of the fact that they have higher IQ). White people don't feel inferior to them, so why should black people feel inferior to whites?

>>17315675
I'm not gonna listen to your bitchute videos, just summarize the points if they're that compelling.
>G factor intelligence is an accurate predictor of life success by objective metrics, end of story.
Success != intelligence

>>17315610
you wish shitskin

>>17315706
wow what a retard. incapable of understanding a simple sentence. no wonder you're arguing against the significance of IQ, you're probably scraping double digits.

>>17315719
What have I misunderstood? If anything, it makes you smarter to not shill some psychology 'science' that claims to measure intelligence. Take your barista degree and fuck off.

>>17315706
>I'm not gonna listen to your bitchute videos, just summarize the points
ok. Jared Diamond is factually incorrect and almost never provides sources for his claims.
that was a easy.

>a high sugar lifestyle is an accurate predictor of later life health issues like diabetes
>SUGAR != DIABETES

ok, it's pretty obvious that you are out of your element here. Watch the video or don't, but don't pretend like you're doing anything but being contrarian.

>>17315724
He wasn't making the claim that success = intelligence.
He was making the claim that G factor (as measured imperfectly but still very meaningfully by IQ) is a good predictor of life success, which it is. E.g. r = 0.6 for job success in high complexity jobs.

>>17315750
>ok. Jared Diamond is factually incorrect and almost never provides sources for his claims.
>that was a easy.
what the fuck. the book has a 30 page 'further reading' section where he points to all of the sources that he used. The person who made this video must have never read the book, so why would I listen to what they have to say?
>>a high sugar lifestyle is an accurate predictor of later life health issues like diabetes
>>SUGAR != DIABETES
You've managed to be reductive while trying to make me look foolish. It's true that sugar != diabetes, and not every one who has a high sugar lifestyle becomes diabetic. You're also using metrics that we know for a fact can be measure objectively, like amounts of sugar and the existence of a condition. Intelligence is an abstract concept, anyone could define it differently and still be valid.
>>17315767
>He wasn't making the claim that success = intelligence.
Clearly he was, as he was responding to a post that dismissed IQ as a meaningful metric to measure intelligence. This is playing semantics.

>>17315784
>Clearly he was, as he was responding to a post that dismissed IQ as a meaningful metric to measure intelligence. This is playing semantics.

No you're just dumb, and don't understand what a correlation is.

>and not every one who has a high sugar lifestyle becomes diabetic
Congrats bro glad you can grasp this. Truly impressive

It seems that you're a bit lost in this discussion. You should try explain why IQ is a good predictor of life success if it doesn't measure intelligence.

>>17315819
>It seems that you're a bit lost in this discussion. You should try explain why IQ is a good predictor of life success if it doesn't measure intelligence.
One of the possible answers to this question is that tests like the american SATs and university tests are similar to iq tests. Obviously if someone does well on the SATs and well on university tests this sets them up to highly likely to be successful in life, but this doesn't necessarily equate to them being highly intelligent.
Ergo, IQ test result correlation with success in life may not be an indicator that people who do well on IQ tests are highly intelligent, just that they are good at standardised tests.

>>17315695
>>17315650
>because a higher IQ does not make an individual fundamentally more valuable than another.
If this is your belief then my posts are not aimed at you.
My posts are for those who use IQ tests results as a justification to believe that black people are inferior to white people.

But I so have another question for you.
Based on your posts I get the impression that you think that those who believe the difference between white and black people is based solely in socioeconomic differences are entirely wrong, and that the differences are instead based solely in innate qualities like genetics.
Is that true? And how do you justify this?

>>17315846
Except that this relationship still holds in low complexity jobs which do not have anything to do with SAT scores or other standardised tests. It's a slightly weaker correlation, although it's easier to see why this would be the case (less complexity requires less intelligence for success).

What do you think it about IQ tests that fail to test intelligence?

>>17315846
It would be interesting to put people in different challenging situations and see how well IQ predicted success. Surviving in nature, building a structure, learning to shoot, getting from point A to point B the fastest across a huge nature course, etc.

>>17315784
>further reading
"Go read through all of these books at random because i'm not going to cite more than a few actual studies that directly apply to whatever arguments i'm making"
sorry, but that's playing fast and loose.
>You've managed to be reductive
I'm sorry, i could've sworn you were the one who decided to be reductive in the first place. Why are we holding me to a different standard? Is it because you're making disingenuous arguments and have no intention of entertaining any data we present? That's what it sure looks like.

>>17315902
Not him but it seems retarded to think that the depth and complexity of human intelligence is captured by what is essentially a sheet of puzzles

>>17315902
>17315846 (You) #
>Except that this relationship still holds in low complexity jobs which do not have anything to do with SAT scores or other standardised tests.
I never said anything about the jobs being similar to standardised tests, I said being good at standardised tests opens opportunities for better jobs

>>17315928
>I never said anything about the jobs being similar to standardised tests, I said being good at standardised tests opens opportunities for better jobs
I know. And I said that the relationship still holds for job performance in jobs where standardised test performance is irrelevant. E.g. if you are a plumber, you do not need to do an SAT, and so being good at standardised tests does not afford you better opportunities in your plumbing career. And yet, IQ is still a good predictor of your job performance. Why is that?

You should work on being less obtuse.

>>17315928
why does this guy keep strawmanning everything we say? Can he not form a solid argument on his own? I noticed he doesnt respond to posts which present raw data.

>>17310281
Some of those are clearly larping for the (you)s

>>17314456
Are you aware that the average Korean iq is 105?

>>17315866
>>17315866
>If this is your belief then my posts are not aimed at you.
But you did question the utility of allowing the facts of race and IQ to be widespread knowledge. This is what I disagree with.

>Based on your posts I get the impression that you think that those who believe the difference between white and black people is based solely in socioeconomic differences are entirely wrong, and that the differences are instead based solely in innate qualities like genetics.
Not solely, but it is certainly a significant factor. IQ is a good predictor of life success--if you don't control for this then it's impossible to examine whether, say, black people earn less than white people in the U.S.

>>17315610
cope nigger

>>17309393
are you this retarded?

>>17315990
>Not solely, but it is certainly a significant factor. IQ is a good predictor of life success--if you don't control for this then it's impossible to examine whether, say, black people earn less than white people in the U.S.
Ok then you think there is merit to fixing the socioeconomic scenario of black people in America

>>17316199
dumping more money into a perceived problem instead of acknowledging the underlying cause != merit

>>17316199
As I said the nature of the problem is unclear. It may be that black people in the U.S. are earning exactly as much as would be expected given their average IQ. It also may be that black people don't commit more crime than other races once IQ is controlled for. The key problem of race relations in the U.S. is the tendency to view issues primarily through the lens of race.

I also acknowledge that the problem in the U.S. may not be fixable without dramatic societal upheaval. There will always be earnings and power differentials between blacks and whites in capitalist society. In so far that human nature is unable to see past race, it is likely that this means there will always be social instability in a very racially heterogenous society such as the U.S or South Africa. Throw in the a country's dark past of slavery and oppression and you get a situation that is probably unresolvable without violence.

>>17316236
Who said anything about changing racial inequality in IQ tests, I have no obsession with them unlike many others in this thread seem to do.

What I'm focused on is how to actually improve life for the American people, not being "right" and "correct"

>>17316294
>What I'm focused on is how to actually improve life for the American people
>in /lit/
>in a thread about a propaganda book
No you aren't. You certainly aren't fooling me. What has your point even been this entire time other than "I cannot adapt my worldview to include X, so i'm trying to refocus the conversation on Y"

>>17316355
>Reeee I don't believe you
Lmao ok pal doesn't mean you're right

>>17308279
based

>>17316394
>reeee I wont even acknowledge evidence presented, i'll just waste everyone's time in this thread as I refuse to cede a single point even in the face of evidence.
But I already called you out as being disingenuous and arguing in bad-faith. You came here with the answer already in your mind and you never intended to consider otherwise.

Refute >>17315668 or fuck off.
The only reason you "dont care" is because you dont have a single argument against it.

>>17313330

Do you deny jewish preeminence in relation to the current moral liberal zeitgeist? ReAd culture of critique.

No, but this is:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qvaxPH3ftUQ/

>>17309189

A worldview premised on lies is hard to sustain with such obvious evidenced of human biodiversity. Equality is false. This needn’t have a moral dimension to accept as the truth

>>17315595
Sounds great actually. Just fucking bitches, hunting, and hanging with the lads

Its actually impossible to discuss this type of book without it turning into a flamewar. One end that believes in the book will fervently defend its premises, and the other will attack its premises as being contemptible propaganda, because it is used as propaganda in liberal schools to indoctrinate people into believing in the blank slate.
The blank slaters can not, and won't accept that their worldview is premised on denial and wishful thinking. If they do make the concession that humans have different intellectual ability, they will still try to suppress it by appeals to consequences of admitting it.

>>17315426
Nice

>>17308881
Neanderthals are the same species as humans. Evolution is a lie.

>>17309078
That allegations of "systemic racism" are bs since differing outcomes is natural.

>>17309264
>actual living conditions?
But it's literally the opposite. Europe had harsher environmental factors i.e the winter that forced evolutionary adaptions. For instance, having enough intelligence to prepare for the winter and thus survive. Africa was by comparison easy to live in. But probably less so than the middle east and china.

>>17309235
Childish and naive, arrogantly so. You'll never be able to understand reality, way too much info to proccess. What would be your goal with this?

>>17308722
>le sarcasm
Not an argument bitch.

>>17307834
The whole thing is incredibly selective in its application of its proofs, to the point that most of the book is a post-facto deterministic rationalization for why things are the way they are that, rather than finding important factors that may have contributed to the development or lack thereof of certain civilizations--which is how a researcher who isn't a hack would go about this--Diamond instead spends the entire fucking book selectively applying his own proofs.

I'll just give you one example, which is the incredibly asinine statement that much of Africa was lacking in natural agricultural crops that could be easily domesticated. This is so incredibly, absurdly wrong that I had to go back and read it again just to be sure I did not somehow misread it the first time. Yams just don't exist now? You can't grow beans in Africa? The entire point of domesticating crops is that they start out one way, and through centuries of selective planting become more fit for human consumption.

Similarly, lack of large navigable waterways. What the fuck is the Zambizi? What about North America, the Mississippi river network is literally the largest, AND most fertile and navigable river system on planet Earth, why does geographical determinism only become this pivotal factor when it conveniently fits into one narrative that conveniently explains a bunch of politically uncomfortable issues?

And the most frustrating part of all of this shit is that it was clearly Diamond trying to be progressive by attributing the flourishing of civilizations not to tribal or genetic interpretations of human behavior but to environmental pressures, and it STILL DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE EVERYONE STILL CALLS THE BOOK RACIST

FUCK

>>17309278
Cope

>>17317909
Exactly this post. Diamond is a pseud and just framed the whole argument wrong and here we have a whole thread of his handiwork as people are rabidly arguing over a pack of ahistorical red herrings.

No

>>17309298
>Why do anything when you could just sit around all day wanking off?
Good argument

>>17309078
>Then what is it?

Man, leftists really are incapable of wisdom for wisdom's sake. Over-socialized, over-politicized cunts.

>>17319490
if you say so, chantard