Russian billionaire buys James Watson's DNA Nobel Prize for $3 Million, only to return it to him - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46686530]Highlighted the bullshit for you. Europeans were just as "savage" and from an Anthropological perspective it's innopropriate to judge certain cultural practices as "barbaric" or "uncivilized. It's called Ethnocentrism The reason for slower development is mostly geography. Europeans had access to a varity of domesticated animals, crops such as corn and wheat, and an overall better starting climate. To say Africa didn't develop is asinine. Look at the Carthaginans, or the Egyptians or the Numedians or Sumarians. Colonization sent Africa back centuries in development as well. As for the native americans, well they arrived at the americas much later than the Europeans reaches their homelands. This meant they were further behind in development. They also lacked domesticated animals to help with crops. Can you imagine Europe developing without the bull or oxen? Surplus food storage leads to more specialized workforces which in turn leads to new develowmts and innovation. TL;DR Geography Geography Geography[/QUOTE] That, and in the case of gunpowder, Native Americans had no need for it. Their cultural survival did not depend on it. So yes Snoberry Tea, they did develop in a different direction,

[QUOTE=Robber;46686636][citation needed] How is it so unfathomable that he might be right? I have no idea if he is, I'm no biologist, but just because racist assholes say something doesn't mean it's now not okay to do actual research on that subject. I[B]t's a fact that black people have different genes than white people (if you look very closely you can see that the skin actually has a slightly different color)[/B].[/QUOTE] Actually no, they don't. The average genetic differences between black people and white people amount to around 0.06% of ALL genetic material (Cohen,2002), and this is accounting for skin colour, etc. One leading theory of why there remains a constant source of disparity is a social feedback loop - IQ tests are created to study IQ, a concept that needs... an IQ test. There is also the matter of a 'sterotype threat', where testee's are predetermined to do worse because IQ tests from the past SAYS that they will do worse. I mean, people from Asian racial groups always always do better in tests (On average) than any other racial group... even if they're all American, or European, etc - even with THE SAME or WORSE intelligence level. IQ testing is not a natural elements that we are studying, it's been invented - certain people will want to measure different things, and have different ways of measuring it. A lot of research currently says that measuring people in terms of racial groups is not at all useful or valid, we should put our attention towards 'cultural experience' intelligence to understand the differences between individuals.

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46686530]Highlighted the bullshit for you. Europeans were just as "savage" and from an Anthropological perspective it's innopropriate to judge certain cultural practices as "barbaric" or "uncivilized. It's called Ethnocentrism The reason for slower development is mostly geography. Europeans had access to a varity of domesticated animals, crops such as corn and wheat, and an overall better starting climate. To say Africa didn't develop is asinine. Look at the Carthaginans, or the Egyptians or the Numedians or Sumarians. Colonization sent Africa back centuries in development as well. As for the native americans, well they arrived at the americas much later than the Europeans reaches their homelands. This meant they were further behind in development. They also lacked domesticated animals to help with crops. Can you imagine Europe developing without the bull or oxen? Surplus food storage leads to more specialized workforces which in turn leads to new develowmts and innovation. TL;DR Geography Geography Geography[/QUOTE] Corn is domestic to the Americas and was not present in Europe until after the Columbian Exchange Also I pointed out "sub-saharan african". When I say "middle east" it also includes Saharan Africa. Nations like Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, etc. Also, the Americas had comparable domesticated crops and animals to use.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46686394]They did develop faster and you can't really claim otherwise. By the time we encountered the Native Americans we had ships-of-the-line, black powder, cannons, rifles, rudimentary steam driven machines, we had discovered how to make metallurgical alloys such as bronze, brass, and steel The Chinese invented gunpowder before any other culture. The Arabian cultures developed advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other sciences, the Europeans refined and expanded on those theories. Meanwhile the Mayans and Incans, who are accepted as the most advanced civilization of the "new world", carved boats out of tree trunks, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, and still used stone and basic metals to make spears and obsidian bladed swords. I'm not saying they're dumb. I'm saying there's an obvious gap in development. They didn't develop in a "different direction", they just developed slower. They were effectively in a different era compared to Eurasian cultures. Probably the biggest reason is lack of such a dense population base. Europe and Asia have historically been very densely populated compared to Africa and the Americas. This contributed to more wars and more inter-communication between different ideological and ethnic groups, which would push innovation. Civilization X invents the iron sword, Civilization Y invents the shield to counter it. Civilization X invents the halberd to counter that, Civilization Y invents a arquebus, etc etc That being said, there are more likely than not ADDITIONAL factors that contributed to these gaps in development. Population density is probably the biggest contributing factor. I would say 'war' or 'threat of war' would be one as well, but records show that sub-saharan african civilizations and new world civilizations tended to be just as active on that front as Europeans and Asians were. But perhaps the style of warfare being different reduced the dependency on developing new technologies to counter effective standards. Whereas in Europe a war would have been, for lack of a better term, "more civilized" (women and children GENERALLY left unharmed, prisoners of war GENERALLY not slaughtered/sacrified, etc) it would have left more infrastructure intact in the 'conquered' civilization to induce a need for technological superiority to counter what the invaders had used; In the new world or african tribes, history has GENERALLY shown that these standards did not exist. Whole villages were wiped out, women and children were enslaved and raped (the women, not the children) and forced into servitude or outright slaughtered, prisoners weren't taken, etc etc. With no 'conquered populace' to revolt or gain the upper hand, there would be less reason to develop a counter-balancing technology, thus encouraging a more stagnant intellectual development.[/QUOTE] Your last two paragraphs are riddled with contradictions. Also, I don't think most modern technology developed from people wanting to kill each other more effectively. People invent what they need not soley because of war.

Arguably it's harder to learn when you're fighting for survival. If you spend most of your time gathering enough food and clean water to keep you alive - you aren't likely to work on groundbreaking scientfic projects. Whether or not his train of thought was similar, I've no idea. Either way though it's obviously not applicable to all Africans and most definitely not applicable to (for example) African Americans.

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46686530] TL;DR Geography Geography Geography[/QUOTE] So being in the Southern Hemisphere is bad for development?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46686394]The Chinese invented gunpowder before any other culture. The Arabian cultures developed advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other sciences, the Europeans refined and expanded on those theories. Meanwhile the Mayans and Incans, who are accepted as the most advanced civilization of the "new world", carved boats out of tree trunks, practiced slash-and-burn agriculture, and still used stone and basic metals to make spears and obsidian bladed swords.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring the fact that Mayans and Incans DID have a solid grasp of mathematics, astronomy, etc. It wasn't just the middle east that created it and imported it elsewhere like the chinese did with gunpowder. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46686394]Probably the biggest reason is lack of such a dense population base. Europe and Asia have historically been very densely populated compared to Africa and the Americas. This contributed to more wars and more inter-communication between different ideological and ethnic groups, which would push innovation. Civilization X invents the iron sword, Civilization Y invents the shield to counter it. Civilization X invents the halberd to counter that, Civilization Y invents a arquebus, etc etc[/QUOTE] The Americas had a very dense populations - they didn't live in mud huts, temples and shanties. A leading theory (will find source) is dense townships and cities in North America. We never viewed them as densely populated because of the heavy depopulation occurring before we settled there. Secondly, Civ X counters Civ Y is massively simplistic. 18th century armor was very practical against low velocity musketfire, and could hardly outstrip the bow in terms of killing power per minute - it was just ridiculously cheaper to train 10,000 dumbwits to use a gun and wear no armor than otherwise., and the social believes that bows were old fashioned. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46686394]Whereas in Europe a war would have been, for lack of a better term, "more civilized" (women and children GENERALLY left unharmed, prisoners of war GENERALLY not slaughtered/sacrified, etc) it would have left more infrastructure intact in the 'conquered' civilization to induce a need for technological superiority to counter what the invaders had used;[/QUOTE] The Thirty Years War would like a word. So would many wars in that region - looting and pillaging does not leave women and children unharmed.

MrEndangered do you not know what the word "Generally" means?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46686394] Whereas in Europe a war would have been, for lack of a better term, "more civilized" (women and children GENERALLY left unharmed, prisoners of war GENERALLY not slaughtered/sacrified, etc) it would have left more infrastructure intact in the 'conquered' civilization to induce a need for technological superiority to counter what the invaders had used; In the new world or african tribes, history has GENERALLY shown that these standards did not exist. Whole villages were wiped out, women and children were enslaved and raped (the women, not the children) and forced into servitude or outright slaughtered, prisoners weren't taken, etc etc. With no 'conquered populace' to revolt or gain the upper hand, there would be less reason to develop a counter-balancing technology, thus encouraging a more stagnant intellectual development.[/QUOTE] The Rape of Berlin ring a bell?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46687005]MrEndangered do you not know what the word "Generally" means?[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk down to you. I don't think anything you're saying is dumb, I just don't like it when people say 'oh well generally' as a broad sweep of history or such. I'm making a point that any view like that is overly simplistic and offering a counterpoint. If you wanna generalise, give a solid reason to generalise.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;46686956]You're ignoring the fact that Mayans and Incans DID have a solid grasp of mathematics, astronomy, etc. It wasn't just the middle east that created it and imported it elsewhere like the chinese did with gunpowder. The Americas had a very dense populations - they didn't live in mud huts, temples and shanties. A leading theory (will find source) is dense townships and cities in North America. We never viewed them as densely populated because of the heavy depopulation occurring before we settled there. Secondly, Civ X counters Civ Y is massively simplistic. 18th century armor was very practical against low velocity musketfire, and could hardly outstrip the bow in terms of killing power per minute - it was just ridiculously cheaper to train 10,000 dumbwits to use a gun and wear no armor than otherwise., and the social believes that bows were old fashioned. The Thirty Years War would like a word. So would many wars in that region - looting and pillaging does not leave women and children unharmed.[/QUOTE] Vast townships and cities in North America? The American Indians never had many cities over a thousand people. In my state there's Angel Mounds which is the best preserved American Indian settlement, and it's one of the largest and at its peak in 1400 AD it was only estimated at 1,000 people. They were not known for gathering in groups much larger than that of other hunter gatherers from around the world.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46687005]MrEndangered do you not know what the word "Generally" means?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War#Casualties_and_disease[/url] This one is well cited, too.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;46686849]Actually no, they don't. The average genetic differences between black people and white people amount to around 0.06% of ALL genetic material, and this is accounting for skin colour, etc. One leading theory of why there remains a constant source of disparity is a social feedback loop - IQ tests are created to study IQ, a concept that needs... an IQ test. There is also the matter of a 'sterotype threat', where testee's are predetermined to do worse because IQ tests from the past SAYS that they will do worse. I mean, people from Asian racial groups always always do better in tests (On average) than any other racial group... even if they're all American, or European, etc - even with THE SAME or WORSE intelligence level. IQ testing is not a natural elements that we are studying, it's been invented - certain people will want to measure different things, and have different ways of measuring it. A lot of research currently says that measuring people in terms of racial groups is not at all useful or valid, we should put our attention towards 'cultural experience' intelligence to understand the differences between individuals.[/QUOTE] IQ tests are kind of bullshit anyways, because intelligence is a pretty relative thing that can't just be measured as one thing. Like, in danish psychiatry, pretty much all children and teens are IQ tested at first when they encounter our mental health system, so yeah I was tested by a doctor. I have an IQ of 128, that's two points from being MENSA, yet I fail at pretty much anything normally attributed to being a smart person: I suck at politics(or at least had very unpopular opinions, which has made me come to the point where I deny having any political opinion entirely) and I can't understand higher levels of math such as calculus and vector stuff, I am pretty much limited to the 4 basic arithmetic functions and basic trigonometry, I might have a firm grasp on the functions of a computer and used to do some pretty rad stuff(like using debug.exe to disassemble command.com to look at how it worked) back in the day, but most modern computer stuff just completely fucking beats me and as with math, my understanding of computer science is limited to pretty basic concepts. I do play music instruments but I am by no means any good musician, and I can't compose anything original without finding that I just stringed a bunch of music tropes together to make a "song" I am actually pretty dumb for a person that scored so high IQ. My only competences aren't really that demanding of any intelligence, bolt-action rifles are pretty simple to handle(breath and motoric control is where the hard parts are) and handling explosives just requires you to have a bit of balls and understand how volatile chemicals act.(this can be ignored if you don't really care for keeping all your fingers, though.) In the other hand, one of my old best buddies had an IQ in the 80 range, while he spoke in a pretty basic manner and didn't show any outwards signs of intelligence, he was pretty fucking good at strategic and tactical thinking and he is currently on his way to become an electrician, and he does well. Electricians require to understand sine waves as part of alternating current theory, something I could never in my life even wrap my head around. So yeah, the IQ system is kinda bullshit.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;46687043]Vast townships and cities in North America? The American Indians never had many cities over a thousand people. In my state there's Angel Mounds which is the best preserved American Indian settlement, and it's one of the largest and at its peak in 1400 AD it was only estimated at 1,000 people. They were not known for gathering in groups much larger than that of other hunter gatherers from around the world.[/QUOTE] I was talking about a piece of research... which I will post when my google-fu plays true.... stating that there is some scant evidence of much much larger settlements by native americans in medieval times - and that population density was much higher long before colonization. I'm not stating it at absolute fact, but it was a pretty interesting piece.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;46687043]Vast townships and cities in North America? The American Indians never had many cities over a thousand people. In my state there's Angel Mounds which is the best preserved American Indian settlement, and it's one of the largest and at its peak in 1400 AD it was only estimated at 1,000 people. They were not known for gathering in groups much larger than that of other hunter gatherers from around the world.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia[/url] Estimates for its population at peak are as high as 40,000, the low being 6,000. Plus, Native Americans includes South and Central America. At its height, Tenochtitlan had population between 20,000 and 40,000 people. It was similar with the other civilizations of the Americas.

[QUOTE=NeverGoWest;46687061]So yeah, the IQ system is kinda bullshit.[/QUOTE] I never knew the Danes were so serious about IQ testing - that sounds pretty messed up to have your IQ measured so casually. I'd love to talk to you more about your experiences some time. If you wanna rant about some more of that one day shoot me a PM. I do agree though, IQ measurement is pretty bullshit.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46685901]Except it isn't bullshit. How can you explain the developmental differences between Saharan African Culture, Asia Minor Culture, Sub-Saharan African Culture, East/West Asian Cultures, European Culture, and Native North/South/Central American Cultures? European, Asian, and Middle Eastern cultures developed at a faster rate than African and Native American cultures. I'm not saying it's because Africans are "inherently dumber", but you've got to examine the empirical evidence and at least concede that there must be something causing such a stark developmental gap.[/QUOTE] Obligatory mention of "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Not 100% accurate and there are many caveats to it, but it should give you some idea and is an entertaining read.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46685901]Except it isn't bullshit. How can you explain the developmental differences between Saharan African Culture, Asia Minor Culture, Sub-Saharan African Culture, East/West Asian Cultures, European Culture, and Native North/South/Central American Cultures?[/QUOTE] this kind of discussion really isnt one i want to get in considering how fp is nowadays, but i wanna point out that you really can't just say "except it isn't bullshit" when there are tons of other factors to it. the first one that comes to mind are the different food and nutrition sources in all of those biomes, meaning some of them had to work more for the same (or lesser) nutritional values, aka some tribes had less nutrition while in a crucial development stage

That's only what, 0.03% of his wealth? That's the equivalent of the average middle class american spending $1 from their monthly paycheck Wish I was rich, damn

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;46686956]The Americas had a very dense populations - they didn't live in mud huts, temples and shanties. A leading theory (will find source) is dense townships and cities in North America. We never viewed them as densely populated because of the heavy depopulation occurring before we settled there.[/QUOTE] They weren't. The agricultural practices of that time were completely incapable of sustaining urban populations. They could not grow enough food, and transport it to where it was needed. Only in Peru and Mesoamerica do we see these, and even then they also lacked methods of transporting goods (the most obvious being the wheel). [editline]11th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;46687071][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia[/url] Estimates for its population at peak are as high as 40,000, the low being 6,000. Plus, Native Americans includes South and Central America. At its height, Tenochtitlan had population between 20,000 and 40,000 people. It was similar with the other civilizations of the Americas.[/QUOTE] This would be impressive, if not for the fact that the town was abandoned within a century of its founding.

[QUOTE=Deng;46687308] This would be impressive, if not for the fact that the town was abandoned within a century of its founding.[/QUOTE] Except it wasn't. Founded in 950 AD, and its peak was 1250 AD. And once again, the Mayans had cities with over 100,000 people. Incans and Aztecs were no different.

[QUOTE=bdd458;46687339]Except it wasn't. Founded in 950 AD, and its peak was 1250 AD.[/QUOTE] [quote]Cahokia as it is now defined was settled around 1200 CE during the Late Woodland period.[/quote] [quote]It was abandoned during the mid-thirteenth century.[/quote] Again, outside of Mesoamerica and Peru, there weren't really any urban settlements or large dense populations. [editline]11th December 2014[/editline] Think about the population of Europe during the Neolithic. They both possessed roughly the same material development, complexity of society, trade, etc. However, you would be hard pressed to find more than a few million people living in Europe during that time.

[QUOTE=Deng;46687359]Again, outside of Mesoamerica and Peru, there weren't really any urban settlements or large dense populations. [editline]11th December 2014[/editline] Think about the population of Europe during the Neolithic. They both possessed roughly the same material development, complexity of society, trade, etc. However, you would be hard pressed to find more than a few million people living in Europe during that time.[/QUOTE] While Cahokia does have the possibility of being an outlier for being Urban centers in North America, North America was far from hardly being populated. Some modern estimates put Pre-Colombian Native North Americans at 10 million, with the entirety of the Americas housing 70 million people. Some lower modern estimates place the amount of people Pre-Colombus above the Rio-Grande at 3.8 million. I got my numbers from this article: [url]http://www.bxscience.edu/ourpages/auto/2009/4/5/34767803/Pre-Columbian%20population.pdf[/url] As well, Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say. [quote]Scholarly estimates of the pre-Columbian population of Northern America have differed by millions of individuals: the lowest credible approximations propose that some 900,000 people lived north of the Rio Grande in 1492, and the highest posit some 18,000,000. In 1910 anthropologist James Mooney undertook the first thorough investigation of the problem. He estimated the precontact population density of each culture area based on historical accounts and carrying capacity, an estimate of the number of people who could be supported by a given form of subsistence. Mooney concluded that approximately 1,115,000 individuals lived in Northern America at the time of Columbian landfall. In 1934 A.L. Kroeber reanalyzed Mooney’s work and estimated 900,000 individuals for the same region and period. In 1966 ethnohistorian Henry Dobyns estimated that there were between 9,800,000 and 12,200,000 people north of the Rio Grande before contact; in 1983 he revised that number upward to 18,000,000 people.[/quote] My guess is that the real number lies between the low estimates and the high estimates.

[QUOTE=bdd458;46687465]While Cahokia does have the possibility of being an outlier for being Urban centers in North America, North America was far from hardly being populated. Some modern estimates put Pre-Colombian Native North Americans at 10 million[/quote] [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5217/1601.short[/url] And others put them lower than that. Sometimes as low as two million. This is besides the point, as they simply did not have the numbers to sustain urbanisation. [quote]with the entirety of the Americas housing 70 million people. Some lower modern estimates place the amount of people Pre-Colombus above the Rio-Grande at 3.8 million.[/quote] 70 million is a bit high, and the consensus is actually lower than that (about 54 million). Again, compare these societies in the Americas to Neolithic ones in Europe and Asia. These were not societies that could sustain large cities or massive populations in any great number either. If you had 70 million people, they would at least leave some stuff lying around to attest to their existence. Middens, bones, pottery, the remains of houses, evidence of widespread intensive agriculture, specialization and large scale long distance trade, etc. In actuality, societies that don't possess wheels, ploughs, or draft animals don't tend to have the resources capable of sustaining millions upon millions of people. [editline]11th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ECrownofFire;46687099]Obligatory mention of "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Not 100% accurate and there are many caveats to it, but it should give you some idea and is an entertaining read.[/QUOTE] It's actually not a very good book and has been refuted about eleventy trillion times by proper academics. He was hopelessly out of his depth a lot of the time, and ignores almost everything that happened since the advent of agriculture as he suggests the reasons being innately rooted in geography.

So, how about that Russian who gave the award back? Pretty cool of him to be honest.

bruh [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZKubkJn.png[/img]

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46686664]"Different genes" is a very broad term. Everyone has different genes. You realize there is more genetic differences between siblings then between white or black people right?[/QUOTE] Somebody always fucking brings this up whenever a discussion about, "differences between X and Y," pops up, and I'd actually like to see a citation on this because for the number of times I've seen this said and not referenced it could just be a huge crock of shit. Differences DO exist between people of different racial background, between different sexes, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think this. Does that mean we shouldn't be equal in the eyes of society or the law? No, of course not. We're all sentient beings and we all deserve the same chances and level of basal respect, but you're doing yourself, your entire species, and scientific progress itself a disservice if you start getting into this mindset of, "it's racist/sexist/'politically incorrect'/etc to even begin to discuss or look into these [I]possibilities[/I]" (not that you yourself have said that, but that's usually where the argument goes when people start bringing up this whole notion that there's more genetic difference within a group than between groups). If there weren't big genetic differences between different racial groups I wouldn't be able to say with almost absolute certainty that if you're suffering from cystic fibrosis you're probably European (and by demographic breakdown, most likely white), if you're suffering from Tay–Sachs disease you're most likely Jewish, etc, etc. Race should not determine one's ability to do anything or go anywhere in life, but it does have ramifications on the health and well-being of people, and therefore is it really such a stretch to think that [I]possibly[/I] psychological development and the general neurological landscape of individuals may also be controlled by factors pertaining to your racial heritage?

[QUOTE=SlyManx;46686664]"Different genes" is a very broad term. Everyone has different genes. You realize there is more genetic differences between siblings then between white or black people right?[/QUOTE] This doesn't even make any fucking sense.

[QUOTE=sltungle;46688305]Somebody always fucking brings this up whenever a discussion about, "differences between X and Y," pops up, and I'd actually like to see a citation on this because for the number of times I've seen this said and not referenced it could just be a huge crock of shit.[/QUOTE] 1972 study by Richard Lewontin called "The Apportionment of Human Diversity". He basically found that there are more genetic differences [I]within[/I] races than there are between them.

The problem with his quote is that he insults African intelligence, when truly he should be insulting African education, which is non-existant or extremely religiously controlled. Give an African kid the same education we have here, and then you can make a claim about his intelligence, but until then, of course he won't be as knowledgeable living in either a extremely religious state or a extremely poor village.