By poor I mean the general standard of living.
I have heard before that Africa is 'the most mineral rich continent in the world'. While I find proving this seems to be exceedingly difficult (if even possible), I would at least concede that, in terms of mineral wealth, the African continent is probably no worse off than any of the others ...
So what gives? Why do I see TV personalities selling the plight of these starving people? Are Africans really unable to develop any sort of infrastructure to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and medicine?
Not to mention the salt/gold trade routes
DD5:There isn't even an objective definition or criterion for what intelligence is.
thefreedictionary.com:(Psychology) the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning.
DD5: It is very easy to understand this once you realize that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. There is no such objective test or standard for intelligence. There isn't even an objective definition or criterion for what intelligence is. Perhaps, an IQ test is able to better test certain cognitive skills better then other tests but there is no possible way to ever maintain 100% control over other variables, such as experience acquired from the environment. Obviously, people from completely different socioeconomic backrounds with large gaps between the two will score differently on such tests. I believe Thomas Sowell showed this environmental influence over IQ test results a few decades ago. Maybe someone here is familiar with his work on this matter and can provide a link.
It is very easy to understand this once you realize that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. There is no such objective test or standard for intelligence. There isn't even an objective definition or criterion for what intelligence is.
Perhaps, an IQ test is able to better test certain cognitive skills better then other tests but there is no possible way to ever maintain 100% control over other variables, such as experience acquired from the environment. Obviously, people from completely different socioeconomic backrounds with large gaps between the two will score differently on such tests. I believe Thomas Sowell showed this environmental influence over IQ test results a few decades ago. Maybe someone here is familiar with his work on this matter and can provide a link.
It seems to me that all tests for intelligence are roundabout. They measure intelligence by observing how well a person performs difficult mental exercises which require intelligence. Now such a method is not perfect. It cannot be denied that a person who trains at these exercises will perform better than someone who does not, such that the test does not measure intelligence alone but also the experience a person has had at solving prior problems. Also, different individuals have a natural aptitude for a variety of activities which require higher intelligence. One may have a gift for mathematics but not chess. One may be a strategic genius and a horrible musician. So the scientist attempting to measure must try to control for both the various aspects of intelligence and for environmental influences. This can be done somewhat by having a larger sample doing the tests, choosing individuals from similar environments, and having the test consist of multiple types of exercises.
Overall, after controls for other variables is implemented, there is a general intelligence factor, and different racial groups have different intelligence levels. There is a genetic component of IQ which is inherited from one's parents. Also, if there is nothing objective about IQ at all, then it is strange that there is such a strong correlation between it and income; an anomaly which begs an explanation.
Southern:Once again it seems that communism prevented them from becoming wealthy.
Gosh, I fully agree. A good test would be to see the first and second degeneration immigrants to the west: how well do they fare? As for Chinese, and generaly asiatic types, I fully agree that those guys must be, on average, the most intelligent on earth. They have never even had a decent religion, for Heaven’s Sake! What more could one ask?
Merlin: Southern:Once again it seems that communism prevented them from becoming wealthy. Gosh, I fully agree.
Gosh, I fully agree.
Golly gee wiz, Guess that was stating the obvious.
Merlin:They have never even had a decent religion, for Heaven’s Sake! What more could one ask?
Dont follow.
Southern:Dont follow.
I will not return arguments because I know this will cause a sh**storm, but religiosity is the trademark of the undeveloped and childish mind. If an entire people have such low religious feelings as the Chinese, I would expect them to be the most mature people on earth.
Merlin: Southern:Dont follow. I will not return arguments because I know this will cause a sh**storm, but religiosity is the trademark of the undeveloped and childish mind. If an entire people have such low religious feelings as the Chinese, I would expect them to be the most mature people on earth.
Discussion for a different time I guess.
I will post an about this subject I think explains it.
Here
Stephen:While institutional factors such as property rights protection and political decentralization are important, I think the crucial difference is that whites have a higher IQ.
Bullshit.
Whites have had the same IQ for thousands of years. Looking to IQ does nothing to explain the rise and fall of different white civiliations, or explain why the second millenia was filled with unrivalled progress never matched in antiquity.
Peace
Merlin: Southern:Once again it seems that communism prevented them from becoming wealthy. Gosh, I fully agree. A good test would be to see the first and second degeneration immigrants to the west: how well do they fare? As for Chinese, and generaly asiatic types, I fully agree that those guys must be, on average, the most intelligent on earth. They have never even had a decent religion, for Heaven’s Sake! What more could one ask?
Which explains why Catholic Europe developed Science but China did not?
JonBostwick:Which explains why Catholic Europe developed Science but China did not?
I’m afraid that would be unforgivably Eurocentric a view. Until roughly the XIV century Europe was a hellhole of a place, where no decent Chinese or Arab would agree to set foot. An immense amount of discovery has originated in China but of course a look at the map will show that it was impossible for those discoveries to be transmited to Europe often enough for us to notice.
Europe became a rather decent place, on a global scale, somewhere after the Reformation. So one could argue that science developed very fast in China (not very religious), the ancient Fertile Crescent (pagans), Greece (pagans), Rome (pagans) and Arabia (fairly tolerant religiously) and only after the catholic monopoly (which reigned over the dark Ages) was broken and at least some degree of competing views where introduced in Europe did science really take off. Seen like perhaps a monetheistic-centic (yes, that’s a stupid term) view of development could become less tenable, to say the least.
JonBostwick: Bullshit. Whites have had the same IQ for thousands of years.
Whites have had the same IQ for thousands of years.
I'm guessing you have nothing to back this up with. Ever heard of the Flynn Effect?
JonBostwick:Looking to IQ does nothing to explain the rise and fall of different white civiliations,
Maybe, maybe not. I can't really say either way. And neither can you.
JonBostwick:or explain why the second millenia was filled with unrivalled progress never matched in antiquity.
I think it does. Until the industrial revolution, mankind was caught in the Malthusian trap. Productivity gains were eaten up by population growth. The major breakthroughs were the result technological discovery rather than capital accumulation. The invention of the steam pump produced the greatest breakthrough. These were the result of people being more intelligent rather than having more capital. So, I disagree.
Merlin:Until roughly the XIV century Europe was a hellhole of a place, where no decent Chinese or Arab would agree to set foot.
Move that number a few centuries foward, but the general point is correct.
One can not argue that science developed, at any rate, in China, because the concept of science did not exist there until it was introduced. The Chinese culture was vastly older than any European culture and yet it never developed science. Neither did the Greeks, who despite possessing a vast amount of knowledge, did not engage in science. That has nothing to do with being centric anything.
Merlin: Europe became a rather decent place, on a global scale, somewhere after the Reformation.
Historically incorrect. The University of Paris, founded in the 12th century, is but one example of emphasis placed on knowledge in medieval Europe. Roger Bacon was born in 1214.
Stephen:These were the result of people being more intelligent rather than having more capital.
Why should I believe that Watt was more intelligent than Aristotle?
JonBostwick: Stephen:These were the result of people being more intelligent rather than having more capital. Why should I believe that Watt was more intelligent than Aristotle?
Obviously, we're talking about aggregates, not individuals.
Stephen:I think it does. Until the industrial revolution, mankind was caught in the Malthusian trap. Productivity gains were eaten up by population growth. The major breakthroughs were the result technological discovery rather than capital accumulation. The invention of the steam pump produced the greatest breakthrough.
This, seriously, this.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan