Liar. Quote me where I said that.
Advertisement
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:51 pm
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:51 pm
Liriena wrote:HMS Barham wrote:It certainly was by modern European standards.
Think really hard about this bit. It holds the key to becoming just a little bit woke.HMS Barham wrote:China was a dirt poor country in 1990, with a total GDP less than that of the Netherlands, a country with about 1% the population.
If modern European diet and living conditions were responsible for modern European IQ advantage over Arabs, then we would expect Chinese IQ to be comparable to that of Arabs, and rising rapidly. Instead, we see it has consistently been about the level of Europeans, and is rising (in relative terms) slowly or not at all.
Again, China's history didn't begin in 1949. You're literally talking about the most ancient nation in existence.
by Eastfield Lodge » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:55 pm
by Eastfield Lodge » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:57 pm
by Liriena » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:59 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:01 pm
Eastfield Lodge wrote:HMS Barham wrote:I do not see your point. I am not sure you have one.
I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:03 pm
Liriena wrote:HMS Barham wrote:How do you personally distinguish the colours green and yellow?
I learned them, with a little help from the centuries of social, cultural and linguistic history leading up to the current conditions of production and recognition at play in the social semiosis of colour in my own very specific corner of the world. The key is that I am aware of the fact that these categories exist because a long series of human beings throughout history willed it so, and that while the colours themselves, such as they are, are natural, the words and the way in which we classify them according to those words are not.
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:05 pm
by Eibenland » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:05 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Eastfield Lodge wrote:I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.
Which makes no goddamn sense unless Liriena's argument is that the calorie requirement to sustain a certain IQ is somehow norm referenced to how historically impressive your civilisation was relative to other civilisations. If we are talking about non-magical processes that might actually lead to higher brain performance in the human body, all that should matter is the absolute nutritional quality regardless how it is obtained or how socially impressive it is in relative terms.
by Liriena » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:09 pm
Eastfield Lodge wrote:HMS Barham wrote:I do not see your point. I am not sure you have one.
I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:11 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.
Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency.
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."
These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.
That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.
by Liriena » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:11 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.
Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency. (Unless they had access to luxury goods and the food typically reserved for the nobility.)
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."
These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.
That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:12 pm
Eibenland wrote:HMS Barham wrote:Which makes no goddamn sense unless Liriena's argument is that the calorie requirement to sustain a certain IQ is somehow norm referenced to how historically impressive your civilisation was relative to other civilisations. If we are talking about non-magical processes that might actually lead to higher brain performance in the human body, all that should matter is the absolute nutritional quality regardless how it is obtained or how socially impressive it is in relative terms.
Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:15 pm
Liriena wrote:Eastfield Lodge wrote:I think their point is that Ancient China was rich by the standards of their time, and it makes little sense to compare Ancient China to modern day standards, because modern day quality of life wasn't present back then either.
My point was more along the lines of: if we accept the premise that there is a singular Chinese race (tell that to the over 50 ethnic groups that comprise mainland China's population), and that this Chinese race collectively maintained a high average IQ over the course of the 20th century despire deep social and economic problems, this could be explained based on the fact that China's long history before the 20th century was not one of complete, apocalyptic misery, and that the high average IQ could be explained as the long history of this people having enough weight on their genetic heritage for more recent events not to diminish that heritage too greatly.
My problem with this person's argument is that they seem to be working under the logic that the historical factors that might play a role in the current average IQs in different nations could only go as far as modern history, and beyond that it's all some sort of ahistorical biological essentialism.
by Eibenland » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:15 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Eibenland wrote:Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.
Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:17 pm
by Liriena » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:17 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Eibenland wrote:Your claims about IQ make little sense unless we can determine the average IQ in China, Europe, and the Middle East at various points in history. We could then compare those historical societies to examine your hypothesis.
Why? We are talking about IQ differences today.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:21 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:25 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:White people are white because our ancestors lived in an area with low vitamin sources due to cloud coverage, and insufficient alternatives from the wildlife. You can make the argument that we're slightly better at space colonization as a result of needing less direct sunlight. Orcs don't go dark, they go white, it would seem, and Europes mordor atmosphere led to these developments.
Historically, darker skinned people turning up with sicken, and get the problems of vitamin D deficiency.
it would make sense for white people who didn't know this shit to just up and assume they were weak and stupid.
"You're dumb mr black man, you're weak, how come you can't survive on bread and clouds? We can."
These days we can supplement vitamin D from other sources for minorities living here.
That is the sum total of white supremacy backed by actual science.
Europeans don't look like sub-Saharans even when you equalise the pigmentation.
There are systemic differences.
Even if there weren't, and the races were totally arbitrary social constructions, like assigning people to a race according to the date of their birthday, it would not follow that there can't be bulk differences between them.
by Liriena » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:25 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Liriena wrote:My point was more along the lines of: if we accept the premise that there is a singular Chinese race (tell that to the over 50 ethnic groups that comprise mainland China's population), and that this Chinese race collectively maintained a high average IQ over the course of the 20th century despire deep social and economic problems, this could be explained based on the fact that China's long history before the 20th century was not one of complete, apocalyptic misery, and that the high average IQ could be explained as the long history of this people having enough weight on their genetic heritage for more recent events not to diminish that heritage too greatly.
So to be clear: you believe that before 1949 China had a standard of living comparable to 2017 Europe, integrated over most of its history?
HMS Barham wrote:My problem with this person's argument is that they seem to be working under the logic that the historical factors that might play a role in the current average IQs in different nations could only go as far as modern history, and beyond that it's all some sort of ahistorical biological essentialism.
Obviously I believe that historical factors have an influence on IQ: specifically I believe that IQ changes in populations on an evolutionary timescale.
HMS Barham wrote:You believe that it changes within single human lifetimes, presumably within the time it takes for a baby to grow to maturity.
HMS Barham wrote:You now seem to be conceding to my position that IQs do not respond to immediate economic conditions, but rather respond to long term differences in manner of living over many generations. You're trying to pass a concession as a rebuttal.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Liriena » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:27 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Liriena wrote:Why not?
It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Fartsniffage » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:29 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Liriena wrote:Why not?
It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:32 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:HMS Barham wrote:It's easy why not talk about the IQ of Chinese in 1500: we don't have any data on that. This is an attempt to claim there isn't enough data to decide the matter one way or another (rather an embarrassing climbdown for you just a few posts after asserting I'm so obviously completely wrong my position doesn't even warrant arguing with), but there is; we don't need the ancient data. It would be nice, but it's not necessary.
What evolutionary pressure do you think there is for different levels of IQ across the races?
by HMS Barham » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:32 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:HMS Barham wrote:Europeans don't look like sub-Saharans even when you equalise the pigmentation.
There are systemic differences.
Even if there weren't, and the races were totally arbitrary social constructions, like assigning people to a race according to the date of their birthday, it would not follow that there can't be bulk differences between them.
This is true, but it's also true for subsets of humans in sub-sahara and also in europe.
There are some differences between the races. I'm happy to go over the ones that are scientifically proven if you want.
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:35 pm
HMS Barham wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is true, but it's also true for subsets of humans in sub-sahara and also in europe.
There are some differences between the races. I'm happy to go over the ones that are scientifically proven if you want.
Not really, I'm well aware already. I thought you were trying to argue that there aren't such difference, but now it seems you're agreeing with me.
I note the irony of Liriena giving two thumbs up to your argument, which explicitly rested on there being real biological difference between definite races.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement