Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
African Americans have had western cultural innovation on lock-down for at least the past 100 years, and IQ was cooked-up by by a field of "science" that can't even reproduce its own seminal papers.
African Americans have had western cultural innovation on lock-down for at least the past 100 years, and IQ was cooked-up by by a field of "science" that can't even reproduce its own seminal papers.
What does this mean? I don't understand what "lock down" means (I'm British).
Not an argument
> African Americans have had western cultural innovation on lock-down for at least the past 100 years
African Americans (which are mulatto btw) constitute to a very small percentage of blacks in the world. And while the importance can discussed all those cultural innovations were built upon western (white) accomplishments. There is almost none signifact scientific/cultural innovations that came form Africa.
> and IQ was cooked-up by by a field of "science" that can't even reproduce its own seminal papers
IQ study is the most well-researched and studied branch of Psychometry and usual attemps at "disproval" are centered around bogus arguments around enviroment being the dominant factor (where study finds that 50%-80% of it is genetic)
Totally an argument when "statistics" frequently just means, "I put my small sample size of confounded variables in Excel and ran the stat functions."
>> There is almost none signifact scientific/cultural innovations that came form Africa.
You mean people living in undeveloped countries aren't going to be on the forefront of cultural innovation? I'm shocked.
>> IQ study is the most well-researched and studied branch of Psychometry and usual attemps at "disproval" are centered around bogus arguments around enviroment being the dominant factor (where study finds that 50%-80% of it is genetic)
Never even addressed nature vs nurture. I'm sure if any other bunch of quacks spent a hundred years tweaking a test to predict their idea of intelligence, I'm sure it would. I'd be less sure about it predicting the forms of intellect they failed to consider.
e.g:
- dietary iodine affects your IQ positively
- exposure to lead (e.g: leaded fuel emissions), arsenic (e.g: from water) and pollution at a large affects your IQ negatively
Western accomplishments, which mostly happened from the Reinassance onwards, became possible when:
1) Paper was introduced in Europe. Before that, printing a book would require "parchments" made out of sheep or goat skin. It would take in average 300 goats to print a bible.
2) The Church was influenced by philosophers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and became more tolerant of science. Before that it would be considered blasphemy, apostasy or witchcraft.
3) A vast number of volumes of philosophical and scientific literature books was translated into Latin.
4) The introduction of better numerals and algebra.
Who is specifically responsible for that?
1) The Islamic Caliphate of Cordoba, in what today would be modern Spain. Specifically the Toledo School of Translators.
2) Refugees from fallen Constantinople carrying literature with them.
So, in short, the European Reinassance, the process that started the "white achievements" you mention, could not be possible if it wasn't because of the contributions of the Islamic civilization.
The follow up reaction to this is usually: if these guys were so advanced, what happened to them? Two things: Spanish Reconquista, and a massive invasion by the Mongol empire which razed all their cities, agriculture, irrigation, infrastructure, and killed all the scholars.
Knowledge is an uninterrupted chain of teachers and students and a missing generation is enough to kill it.