Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.

Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife

View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile

Some random white scientists that black people like to quote

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Postby ntm1972 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:41 pm

Zionosis wrote:Not true, East Asia has always been strong. In fact if you did history you would see that prior to the 16th century east Asia was ahead and the west was lagging behind as far as technology and prosperity.
Those less than 50 or so important white inventors changed things a lot though.
If anything white civilization rode on the back of those inventors and so did the rest of the world.

Your statement brings to mind what is known in academic circles as "the Needham Question": Why did China fall behind the West in technological advancement, after having been at the forefront for so long?

Here is the pertinent Wikipedia entry, which I will include without comment.

"Needham's Grand Question", also known as "The Needham Question", is why China had been overtaken by the West in science and technology, despite its earlier successes. "Gunpowder, the magnetic compass, and paper and printing, which Francis Bacon considered as the three most important inventions facilitating the West’s transformation from the Dark Ages to the modern world, were invented in China". Needham's works attribute significant weight to the impact of Confucianism and Taoism on the pace of Chinese scientific discovery, and emphasizes what it describes as the "diffusionist" approach of Chinese science as opposed to a perceived independent inventiveness in the western world. Needham held that the notion that the Chinese script had inhibited scientific thought was "grossly overrated".

His own research revealed a steady accumulation of scientific results throughout Chinese history. In the final volume he suggests "A continuing general and scientific progress manifested itself in traditional Chinese society but this was violently overtaken by the exponential growth of modern science after the Renaissance in Europe. China was homeostatic, but never stagnant."

Nathan Sivin, one of Needham's collaborators, while agreeing that Needham's achievement was monumental, suggested that the "Needham question", as a counterfactual hypothesis, was not conducive to a useful answer: "It is striking that this question – Why didn't the Chinese beat Europeans to the Scientific Revolution? – happens to be one of the few questions that people often ask in public places about why something didn't happen in history. It is analogous to the question of why your name did not appear on page 3 of today's newspaper."

There are several hypotheses attempting to explain the Needham Question. Yingqui Liu and Chunjiang Liu argued that the issue rested on the lack of property rights and that those rights were only obtainable through favor of the emperor. Protection was incomplete as the emperor can rescind those rights at anytime. Science and technology was subjugated to the needs of the feudal royal family, and any new discoveries were sequestered by the government for its use. The government took steps to control and interfere with private enterprises by manipulating prices and partaking in bribery. Each revolution in China redistributed property rights under the same feudal system. Land and property were reallocated first and foremost to the royal family of the new dynasty up until the late Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) when fiefdom land was taken over by warlords and merchants. These limited property rights held back much of the potential scientific innovations of that time.

The Chinese Empire enacted totalitarian control and was able to do so because of its great size. There were smaller independent states that had no choice but to comply with this control. They could not afford to isolate themselves. The Chinese believed in the well being of the state as their primary motive for economic activity, and individual initiatives were shunned. There were regulations on the press, clothing, construction, music, birth rates, and trade. The Chinese state controlled all aspects of life, severely limiting any incentives to innovate and to better one’s self. “The ingenuity and inventiveness of the Chinese would no doubt have enriched China further and probably brought it to the threshold of modern industry, had it not been for this stifling state control. It is the State that kills technological progress in Chinaâ€￾.

According to Justin Lin, China did not make the shift from an experience-based technological invention process to an experiment-based innovation process. The experience-based process depended on the size of a population, and while new technologies have come about through the trials and errors of the peasants and artisans, experiment-based processes surpasses experience-based processes in yielding new technology. Progress from experimentation following the logic of a scientific method can occur at a much faster rate because the inventor can perform many trials during the same production period under a controlled environment. Results from experimentation is dependent on the stock of scientific knowledge while results from experience-based processes is tied directly to the size of a population; hence, experiment-based innovation processes have a higher likelihood of producing better technology as human capital grows. China had about twice the population of Europe up until the 13th Century and so had a higher probability of creating new technologies. After the 14th Century, China’s population grew exponentially, but progress in innovation saw diminishing returns. Europe had a smaller population but began to integrate science and technology that arose from the scientific revolution in the 17th Century. This scientific revolution gave Europe a comparative advantage in developing technology in modern times.

Lin blamed the institutions in China for preventing the adoption of the experiment-based methodology. Its sociopolitical institution inhibited intellectual creativity, but more importantly, it diverted this creativity away from scientific endeavors. Totalitarian control by the state in the Chinese Empire inhibited public dispute, competition, and the growth of modern science, while the clusters of independent European nations were more favorable to competition and scientific development. In addition, the Chinese did not have the incentives to acquire human capital necessary for modern scientific experimentation. Civil service was deemed the most rewarding and honorable work in pre-modern China. The gifted had more incentives to pursue this route in order to move up the social status ladder as opposed to pursuing scientific endeavors.
Freshman Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:55 pm
Location: North America

Postby Mr.Darcy » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:22 pm

Zionosis wrote:
Mr.Darcy wrote:We take the best Asians usually and they dong face as much racism.

Oh so your answer is not facing racism. So white people face more racism that Asians in the USA? WTF
I am not talking about blacks here. We are talking about Asians and whites.

So why do they have higher average IQ's in their own countries. Longer life spans and lower average crime.
Are these all lies also.

Also I hate to mention this but the very best Asians born in Japan or Korea or Hong Kong don't all dream to go live in the USA.

East Asian mongoloids split off from white people 40+ thousand years ago.
Technically white people are an older race than east Asians because archeologists have never found skeletons of the mongoloid skull shape 40 thousand years ago. But Caucasoid skulls have been found even before 40 thousand years ago.

Also what makes east Asians pale is not the same gene that is mutated in white people and makes them pale. By logical deduction no pale people existed on the planet 40 thousand years ago because the pale mutations occurred afterwards which is why east Asians and Europeans have differently mutated genes for their pale skin. So the mutation has to have happened after they split.

Asian countries have a stricter work ethic and focus more on academics than the USA. The American public school system is rigged and corrupt. Otherwise, America is pretty much corrupt lol.
Freshman Poster
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:21 pm

Postby Paloaltoguy » Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:53 pm

Cornfed wrote:Have there ever been random IQ tests in various countries correlated with objective factors such as EEG readings, blood glucose through the brain etc.?

That's a good question. But there is no general agreement on exactly how the brain even works. For example, see: (which I believe is one of the better theories out there) or All this stuff is theoretical i.e. Cortical Neurons may or may not have the ability to encode information over longer periods of time than their retinal counterparts or this may or may not blah blah. Lets not forget viruses. Research is showing that viruses can play a part in your thought process
Freshman Poster
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:47 am

Postby Paloaltoguy » Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:11 am

To summarize, IQ level has been normalized to the point that it says there's no variation across races, only education variations and upbringing variations... It's not a fine grain analysis tool until you run the test across time and account for virus and medical diagnosis data, nobody I've ever come across as thought to do that... But it could be buried in some longitudinal study data out there. Definitely never read any medical/health related IQ variation studies.

As for the gnome study, those bullshit artists won't know half the shit I know for another decade. Most of the immune system is altered by a few viruses -- meaning most of the genes they will "decode" will be virus specific doors that allow viruses to setup a chronic activity level. There are quite a few brain pathways that will then be "decoded" from the interactions from the immune genes that show controlling protein production levels (effecting specific nerve sensitivity levels by way of producing more or reducing protein production for receptors or neurotransmitter levels), these will allow them to correct for the virus caused manipulations in *treatments* but the truth is that if you get a particularly nasty virus when you are young, then you are a prime suspect for developing the overactive brain that is edging towards the schizophrenia brain patterns depending on which proteins are over or under produced once the virus starts operating it's control functions. The other issues, which effect 50% of the schizophrenics is the activation of the human genome embedded virus that becomes active when the immune system is compromised. Here you have activation of "genome" code that is normally suppressed but is more than likely being blocked by an active virus that is attempting to block how the immune system is attacking it but it is helping out one of the most ancient viruses that effected our human ancestors. Again, the genome mutations can alter how the immune system suppresses parts of the genome from generation to generation resulting in this embedded virus being more active in some people as soon as their immune system is slightly compromised vs others require multiple compromising viruses/health issues.

The long term impact of how the viruses alter the brain can be huge, i.e. sensory level delusional activation due to regional overactivation and non coherent patterns across the cerebral cortex, which show up when too many different regions of the brain activation simultaneously wheeee
Guts Over Fear
Freshman Poster
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:47 am


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest