Hi
So I've just listened to this : http://mises.org/media/4691
Hoppe says that one of the explanation for the industrial revolution is that Europeans were simply more intelligent. According to him, there's a long natural selection that tooks place until the Welfare state grown bigger and bigger : people who were more intelligent were more successful and earned more money than those who were stupid, so they could die older and have more children.
So centuries after centuries, this took place, but only in northern countries. Why ? Because living conditions are "harsher" in these places, and living is easier than in the so-called third world countries, where "every days look the same".
And now I wonder, how can he says that living was harsher in northern countries than in... Africa for exemple ? We've all watched reports on TV where we see people in villages in Africa eating dirt, dying from deseases, having no water, having to walk 6 hours each day to seek waters or to go to the nearest school... so how was it harder than peasants in England ?
EDIT : subsidary question : I have an economic history exams in 10 days about the industrial revolution. Can I write that northern people (French, yeay !) are more intelligent that african/asian/indians and that's why the industrial revolution happened in Europe ? =D
"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured."—Binet, 1905
You have cause and effect backwards here. You say they couldnt move north because of dark skin. But they did move north. So they would have had to develop pale skin first. It dosent work that way. They moved out of africa first then developed the pale skin to better suit the environment they were in.
Obviously it was gradual and worked hand in hand. As dark skin was selected against on the outskirts of the northern areas settled by humans every next generation was paler and every next generation could move a little bit further north. I reversed nothing. It wasn't one before the other. It was simultanous. There weren't any black people walking around Europe.
The island scenario is only to demonstrate that our physical adaptaions are insufficent to survive outside of the tropics. While our physical adaptations are sufficient when living in the tropics.
As far as Africa being a harsh environment. No its not. We are physically adapted to living in Africa with minimal technology. Put anyone of us on island with a tropical climate we will survive. We are physically incapable of living in subtropical, temperate, and arctic environments without our technology.
We are physically incapable of living in subtropical, temperate, and arctic environments without our technology.
Black settlement area is wider than the tropics.
Yes it is gradual. But the people who moved out of africa had black skin. Skin color had nothing to do with humanity being confined to africa. It was climate and technology. Interglacial periods when the glaciers retreated and the temprature warmed allowed us to move north. Once we moved north we began to loose skin pigment. What I am saying here is widely accepted, nothing controversial.
We are physically incapable of living in subtropical, temperate, and arctic environments without our technology. Black settlement area is wider than the tropics.
I have never claimed that blacks were confined to the tropics and it is irrelevent to my point that you have refused to address directly. That we as human beings are incapable of living in cold climates with out technology. Do you dispute this?
I don't think so. There's nothing in my own family's culture(Pakistani) about being on top of physical activity, my dad has a host of health problems because he never takes care of himself physically. But I developed that athleticism myself after hard work and being involved in a culture that did attribute importance to physical ability. I think this line of thinking really undervalues the time and work it takes to grow and create ability. Mike Tyson didn't become a great fighter till after his training. He lived a rough life growing up which made him more interesting in learning how to fight than the average guy who gets into boxing- but if I were to go by your analysis, then all his hardwork and life experience simply augmented his genetic prowress. Which doesn't make much sense to me seeing as if he didn't put any of that hardwork into it, he would've been a nobody.
If you train like mike tyson will you become the same type of fighter? Maybe. If you have the physical tools neccessary. To claim that athleticism comes from training is simply wrong. Training can only augment what you have. If you compete in any sport at any level you would know this. Some people are natural born athletes and they train hard. This is where the elite athletes in the world come from. Not just hard work, but talent as well.
If one person excels at composing music, while another excels at performing mathematical calculations, who is more intelligent? Which aspect is to be assigned greater weight? It is a purely subjective question.
That is not what is being measured.
Because IQ tests are timed and the time is not enough to finish slowly most of what it tests is metabolism. Metabolism = quick thinking. Anything can change metabolism. Quick thinking also depends heavily on concentration.
Regarding chimps, take this memory test and find out first hand. I bet that nobody here can beat the chimp.
Quote Southern="If you train like mike tyson will you become the same type of fighter? Maybe. If you have the physical tools neccessary. To claim that athleticism comes from training is simply wrong. Training can only augment what you have. If you compete in any sport at any level you would know this. Some people are natural born athletes and they train hard. This is where the elite athletes in the world come from. Not just hard work, but talent as well."
If I had the will and dedication of mike tyson combined with his exact same experience then yes I don't see why not. You get the physical tools from training. Building muscle and getting REALLY good at any athletic sport required hard WORK and time plain and simple. No one does 2 pushups and becomes swoll. Tyson didn't have anything- you can watch that documentary he self narrates called "Tyson". When he first wanted to learn to fight, there was a boxer who was offering a free sparring match to anybody that wanted it, Tyson being experienced in the streets with many fights under his belt at that young age thought he would take it easy but was floored the moment he fought that man and was punched in a way he never was before. He had absolutely nothing over him.(That man then referred him to his first and most important trainer). Without his training, Tyson would've been an absolute nobody that you never heard about. He knew boxing and how to intimidate your opponent very very well, he was a genius in that area. It wasn't his genetics that gave him this- it was his entire life experience.
I never heard of anyone who's a "natural born athlete" and sits around all day and performs amazing well. The elites in this world come from hard work plain and simple- that is everything. I think throwing people in the "oh he's just a natural" category completely diminishes how hard they had to work to become the best. Its insulting, honestly.
I never heard of anyone who's a "natural born athlete" and sits around all day and performs amazing well.
Speed is one thing that is very "talent" oriented. I did a 100m time of 14.1s when I was 9 y/o. My dad could barely pass me in a race. My grandmother on his side was a sprint champ in school. Boxing doesn't strike me so much as talent heavy.
You ever heard of http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Bounce/Matthew-Syed/e/9780061723759/ ? What do you think of it if you have? Here's an article you could read that sums up what he says in there http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/Natural-talent-or-hard-work.6279092.jp
Reread my post. Elites require both hard work and talent. Anyone who claims that the only thing needed to become an elite athlete is hard work knows nothing of athletics. Why we are even having to debate this..... I have no idea.
And yes boxing does take a great deal of talent to become good at. The hand quickness and reflexes of top notch boxers are very much a physical talent you have to be born with. No amount of hard work can compensate.
Quote Southern:"And yes boxing does take a great deal of talent to become good at. The hand quickness and reflexes of top notch boxers are very much a physical talent you have to be born with. No amount of hard work can compensate."
Sorry I think that's nonsense. You can definitely train hand quickness and reflexes. Hard work can definitely compensate, what's the point of boxing training at all if hard work couldn't compensate. That's the entire point. Even if this mystical talent was a factor I'd say it pales in comparison to the thousands of hours of practicing that is undertaken to get good at any athletic endeavor.
Very interesting. I guess I just didnt work hard enought to grow another 4 inches, gain 60lbs, and run half second faster so that I could be an NFL linebacker. Do you have to work hard.... yes. Can hard work overcome physical difficiencies? No. If you are a 98lb weakling you will never be a noseguard for the NFL. There are physical requirements for every athletic pursuit. If you dont have the genes for them you will never achieve them.
Its not nonsense. training can improve your quickness and reflexes, but some will improve more and faster than others. If you deny this then you are the one full of nonsense.
There is nothing mystical about this. I can tell that you have never competed in athletics.
Quote Southern:"Very interesting. I guess I just didnt work hard enought to grow another 4 inches, gain 60lbs, and run half second faster so that I could be an NFL linebacker. Do you have to work hard.... yes. Can hard work overcome physical difficiencies? No. If you are a 98lb weakling you will never be a noseguard for the NFL. There are physical requirements for every athletic pursuit. If you dont have the genes for them you will never achieve them."
Well duh if you're a 98 pound weakling you can't be a noseguard for the NFL. But being skinny isn't a disease or genetic disorder, a skinny person isn't stuck at that weight forever they CAN gain lots of muscle mass if they wanted to, it requires specific training and a complete change in diet, which is hard work. Hard work can't overcome height but that's about it.(and even then someone like Muggsy Bogues exists)
Quote Southern:"Its not nonsense. training can improve your quickness and reflexes, but some will improve more and faster than others. If you deny this then you are the one full of nonsense.
There is nothing mystical about this. I can tell that you have never competed in athletics."
Ok, I know a lot of black kids who are absolutely terrible at physical sports. How can they possibly exist? Are they just anomalies?
Sure some will improve faster than others, I take that to mostly come from their activities and experience before they began training. Do some people gain muscle faster than others? Yes. Do some people learn a bit quicker than others, yes. But is any of it something that the proper training and mindset can't fix? no.