Why was the white race(anglo saxon) so successful? (statistics, border, private school)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good Thread that got derailed. Basically most of the first posters answered this question exquisitely. but my simplified reasons are.
Renaissance
Reformation
Scientific Revolution
Industrialization in England
The "Founding" of the New World and The Fall of Amerindians.
This is a touchy topic. I am not white so don't blame me for not knowing about exactly which demography among whites achieved what it did in arts/science/infrastructure etc. For me its just the white civilization that created cities like Sydney and Toronto and NYC.
I created a similar topic a few years ago. There was a debate panel at my Uni and this question arose. The white guy sitting there(a very non PC pandering dude) stated simply this: Most whites have a individualist mindset. A desire to explore the unknown, a desire of creativity, a desire of self expression. Most other immigrants are simply collectivist in their approach. A Pakistani will favor Pakistani culture, an African American will usually side with his own ilk(OJ Simpson had support of 97% African Americans even though deep down they knew he was wrong). This is what made this civilization what it was especially the early 20th century generation who built these cities, lay a foundation, questioned irrationality.
He also said that this is why the world is dumbing down. Today's youngsters are self centered and clueless. Everyone is PC correct(except when it comes to issues relating to whites) and the minority model of tribalism will eventually destroy civilization. The forefathers who lived in the 20s-60s created a just society which is being slowly but surely eradicated.
What is your take on this debate. Be honest.
Mainly because the brightest of the Caucasian race have a
technology edge on the other races , however this does not make them Superior to any of the other human races.
P.S. Blacks didn't believe that OJ was innocent , they just
wanted to see a black man with money get off scotch free.
Something that we have observed whites doing many times.
Last edited by Howest2008; 03-13-2016 at 06:44 PM..
The Moors weren't a race. They were a civilization based on Islam that occupied certain parts of modern Europe in the medieval days.
The initial Moorish invaders were Arabs and Berbers. Thus, they were Caucasians. The Caucasian race consists of North Africans, Arabs, Whites, Somalians, some people in India and Ethiopians
Yes the Caucasian varied in skin color from milk white
to midnight blueberry black.
Last edited by Howest2008; 03-13-2016 at 08:22 PM..
Laissez faire. As Ludwig von Mises said, "Laissez faire means Let the common man choose and act; do not force him to yield to a dictator."
Look at history: poverty for thousands and thousands of years until the first glimpse of hope for the individual with the spread of Christianity in Europe, the Magna Carta, and the Industrial Revolution. That's just the history. All those things are connected, but you need not necessarily be Christian to enjoy the fruits of a free system today. I think it's hard to deny its role in history though. There is nothing uniquely white about these ideas, they are accessible and open to all. It just so happened that it took root more strongly in white Western European countries.
The path has already been laid out for the entire world, but what we see now is people of all races, in many cases lead by white people, are hell bent on moving further and further away from the philosophy that lead to the most dramatic increase in wealth, well-being, living standards and life expectancy ever.
Christianity and Judism having it's start in Africa & Middle Eastern Asia as a brown skinned religion shows that
whites made baby steps developing the European Christian Model.
this model wasn't even started in Europe . Everyone knows that JESUS childhood was spent in Africa.
mainly because the brightest of the caucasian race have a
technology edge on the other races , however this does not make them superior to any of the other human races.
P.s. Blacks didn't believe that oj was innocent , they just
wanted to see a black man with money get off scotch free.
Yum to
something that we have observed whites doing many times.
Guns, germs, and steel (book by Jared Diamond). Fueled by cooperative aggression and the professional army perfected by the Romans.
First thing I thought of when I saw this thread. Isn't this subject what Guns, Germs and Steel is all about? This is another version of "Yali's question".
It goes back before the Romans. It was the luck of geography for agriculture and trade and things like the early domestication of animals building up immunities that gave Europeans an edge.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but according to the book titled "The IQ Controversy" (which I highly recommend) the IQ is not a very reliable measuring stick of future economic success. While there are minute correlation that says High IQ = Future Success, this correlation is extremely flimsy and can easily be argued against by any decent debater who was willingly to pull up the information. You'll be amaze to know that the correlation between high IQ and future success is not that impressive at all.
First, why would it be bad news if IQ turned out to not be a good predictor of economic success? Considering that most people don't have control over their IQ, that would seem to be great news.
Second, a 2006 meta-analysis, which is a very useful sort of study, pegged the correlation coefficient at around .23, which is far from flimsy. IQ is not the strongest predictor of income, but it is a very strong predictor:
[quote=Coyote Justin;43326321]IQ has nothing to do with the progress of whites, because history tells us that European civilization or what you would probably call the white civilization, didn't begin to make serious gains economically until the pass 600-500 years, which is very recent in human time. Prior to that, they(whites) were pretty much equal with everyone else, including some of the Greater African Empires. Also, what makes you so certain, that whites progress is a result of their IQ instead of their IQ being a result of their progress?/QUOTE]
Look at what western European Caucasians were doing in 1500 and take a look at what most Africans were doing in 1500. Hell, western Europeans had already figured out how to build and sail ships across the Atlantic by then. Various scholars estimate that the GDP in Western Europe in 1500 was between $700 and $1300. That is higher than the current GDP per capita of many African countries today. More importantly, I don't think the fact that large separations have only occurred in recent time debunks the IQ hypothesis. It is likely that IQ matters more in a certain economic environment than others. If one is primarily engaged in primitive agriculture, there is less opportunity for intelligence to yield significant gains. Once there is a sufficient level of opportunity granted by existing technology, however, it is possible that IQ becomes more useful. I don't know if that's actually the case, but it certainly seems possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
The bold is seriously a hot topic for debate. Just like there is evidence that indicates that IQ is hereditary, there is equally available evidence that says that it's partially environmental as well. The fact that adopted kids IQ is more akin to their adoptive parents and not biological parents is a huge sign that environment plays a huge role in the development of IQ and don't let me get into the "Flynn Effect" or how poverty can affect IQ, which has been argued to create a 10-15 point gap in IQ.
IQ being primarily hereditary and partially environmental is not contradictory. I claimed that IQ is primarily heredity in nature, which is not particularly controversial. Most experts peg the correlation coefficient between .4 and .8, with most leaning closer to the latter number. The Minnesota Twin Study removed all doubt that IQ has at least a strong genetic component.
Your claim about adoptive kids having IQs that are closer to their adoptive parents rather than biological parents is dubious (source?), but that conclusion, even if true, is far less important than the main conclusion from the Minnesota Twin Study: identical twins raised separately have an almost 80% correlation in IQ, which is higher than even siblings raised together.
Extreme poverty can of course affect IQ. That is an irrelevant point, though. Extreme poverty can affect height, but there's no question that height is strongly genetic. The Flynn effect is an area of disagreement among experts, so I won't claim to have an answer for it here, however it doesn't appear to present a real challenge to the notion that IQ is genetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote Justin
Also, the biological and genetic differences between the races is very miniscule (We're talking droplets of water into a vast ocean type of small). Majority of the biological differences among humans exist within a particular "race", not between the "races". Even if you tried to ignore all that, there is absolutely NO evidence that shows that IQ is biologically determined by Race, but there is evidence that shows that the environmental hardship of being a particular race can definitely impede on one's IQ and on their self-motivation for success.
The bold simply isn't true.
The rest is, at a minimum, a position held by a few people who are relevant experts rather than a consensus among experts. The 1994 Mainstream Science on Intelligence report, signed by 52 university professors, outright stated that the IQ gaps between races were very significant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainst...n_Intelligence). The APA itself has even said as much (http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/pdf...Q_Neisser2.pdf).
To be clear, I am not claiming that race itself causes IQ differences. "Race" is probably not a precise enough term to claim that. What I am claiming is that there is a statistically significant difference in IQ between races -- there is no debating that -- and this disparity lends advantages to some groups and disadvantages to other groups in their pursuit of success.
In 2013, a survey was sent to a massive number of intelligence psychologists who had recently performed actual research in this area and had had that research published. The results of the survey are available here (click the download button on the page to load the PDF): https://figshare.com/articles/2013_s...igence/1295234
The mean amount of intelligence variation that was attributed to genetics was 47%. 47%! That's massive. In other words, the average view among experts in this field is that half of intelligence variation among races is attributable to genetics. That is not "droplets of water into a vast ocean type of small."
Look at the sample space for the subjects at study. I know better. What genetic trait would you attribute to the better IQ test taking skills by those you consider white? I am sure that those you consider white are NOT tested for a specific human genome but by your visual perception of what white is.......
What is white? Tell me the specific human genome branch that defines white and then tell me why that gives a superior IQ test taking skill? By how much?
It is purely environment and privilege. Don't believe me? Start looking at the similarities of the human genome rather than the infinitesimally small differences.
1. That there is no genetic description of race is unimportant. Going off of self identification alone is sufficient to identify the race-IQ disparity. The explanation, of course, is that folks who tend to be more white trace more of their ancestry to Europe, whereas folks who tend to be blacker trace more of their ancestry to Africa. I used the terms "whiter" and "blacker" because most people in America are a mix to some degree.
2. There are almost no intelligence psychologists in the world who believe the race-IQ disparity is 100% environmental. None. See the last link I provided in the above post. In a 2013 survey of 228 intelligence psychologists who had published in the field recently, the average amount of intelligence variation between races attributed to genes was 47%.
3. You are calling me biased, yet I haven't said anything that indicates I am biased. I am merely claiming something that is in line with experts in the field. I suspect that it is you who might have a bias here. The idea that there could be a genetic difference in intelligence between races is a socially unpopular view, and many people dismiss it out of hand. I don't think that is a good approach to empirical questions. It is not racist to make scientific claims that are backed by honest science.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Civilization in itself is fragile, a small percent of human beings to ever live lived in anything that could be consider a civilization. It takes a population with the virtue to choose to cooperate with each other, giving up short term individual gain for long term societal gain. It takes a high degree of specialization so you can have engineers. It takes a good army to defend your spoils from the surrounding poorer peoples.
You obviously don't understand evolution. So...maybe you should embrace creationism.
Environment. That is the surroundings that influence the subject and culture of a person and their ability to learn.
Think Donald Trump in New York, and a Coal Worker's son in Appalachia.
Donald trump has the luxury of Privilege and Environment.
Coal Worker's son......not so privileged and the environment around him? Not so conducive to learning...meaning lower IQ test.
As for the capacity for learning, the Donald and the Coal Workers son probably the same.
Understand?
By the way, how did you correlate evolution with the talking points we were discussing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
