Both Europe and China have relatively high IQs. However, the standard deviation of IQ in Europe is higher, producing more geniuses, and hence inventions.Aquamarine said:
The standard deviation of the IQ in China is unknown. And a larger population would give more geniuses by itself.plus said:Both Europe and China have relatively high IQs. However, the standard deviation of IQ in Europe is higher, producing more geniuses, and hence inventions.
There are estimates.Aquamarine said:The standard deviation of the IQ in China is unknown. And a larger population would give more geniuses by itself.
Finally, the Chinese average IQ is also very uncertain. Especially what if would be if China had the degree of nutrition that the US has and which seems to have raised IQ by at least 25 points during the last century.
What estimates? There are very few modern Chinese IQ studies and none that are representative for the population as a whole.plus said:There are estimates.
You state that the standard deviation is unknown, and then proceed that a larger population should give more geniuses- this is assuming that the standard deviation is equal or greater than the european average. The genetic IQ average today will not be the same as the average genetic IQs 1000 years ago. However talking about IQ with regards to groups is not recomended on this forum, as the thread will be locked.
I agree with Bladibla (I think) in that the chinese tend to be more hive like wheras the ethnic europeans tend to be more individualistic - something which is required in order to investigate and push forwards with new phenomenon. I believe that much of this effect will be due to society, but some is genetic. However, in the polder fields cooperation was required, and the chinese society back then encouraged conformity. Anyone suggesting strange technologies or ideas would not have been welcomed.
When humans evolved, they did so in an environment of competing bands of people. As group evolutionary strategies evolved, altruism towards the group was beneficial, along with genocidal hatred for other competing groups and fanatical aggressiveness or bravery when it came to defending the tribe, what we call today patriotism and how we define heroes or martyrdom. The tribe, as a unified vehicle carrying more of the alleles for these traits competed with neighboring tribes, the more aggressive, genocidal, cohesive and intelligent tribe on average eliminated the lesser tribe (sometimes of course taking hostages). But slowly, humans that had bloodlust displaced the more peaceful tribes around them, and step-by-step humans became adapted for patriotism towards the group. Individualism was suppressed and cohesiveness became predominant. But all was not equal between different tribes.
The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation
Our ancestors stayed put over thousands of years and developed under vary different environments. For example, xenophobia, group cohesion, tribal conflict, ethnocentrism was heightened in groups that evolved where people were in competition for resources and lived closer together. From Asia to the Mediterranean for example, more people could be supported by the natural resources available. There were many more people, more tribes, and more conflicts. Evolutionary pressures pushed competing groups towards higher frequencies of genetic alleles that favored aggressiveness against one's neighbor. Constant wars and conflicts accelerated this process, producing on average people who today would score much high on ethnocentrism and would have little time for helping or tolerating exploitation by the other. Weak and peaceful tribes were either killed or enslaved.
At the other extreme for example, northwestern Europeans evolved in an extremely harsh environment, one that was glaciated about 10,000 years ago, and supported very few people. Neighboring tribes were not close together, population density was low, and tribal conflict less salient than planning and making provisions for the long harsh winters. In fact, it would be easy to imagine that coming across unknown and relatively altruistic neighbors was live saving. These people evolved in an environment that nurtured compassion for the stranger, because often strangers were a needed resource and not a threat. The greatest threat came from the harsh winters, not from competing tribes. So altruism flourished over xenophobia and fear of the other. High frequencies of alleles for altruism, compassion, tolerance, and benevolence towards all were selected for. But within reason of course. As long as the other did not appear as a threat, reciprocal altruism was selected for over intolerance.
1. This thread is about China, Europe and technology. Not about MacDonald's ethnocentrism theory that says nothing about the technological difference between China and Europe.Scientific Method said:People that evolve a collectivist/ethnocentric group personality are less creative than those that evolve an individualist personality:
You are wrong. Agriculture, writing, mathematics, cities and states where not invented by Europeans. Arabs had a far more advanced civilzation and science than Europe during the early Middle ages. China invented, among other things, paper, the printing press, gunpowder and the compass. Their civilization were more advanced than Europe in most regards for the whole Medieval period.Scientific Method said:Virtually all of the sciences were invented by a small handful of creative high IQ Europeans. Just open up a chemistry or physics book: every equation was invented by someone of European descent. The theory of evolution, the scientific method, the idea of democracy, etc. Europeans are always creating the original scientific ideas, then others just copy. I believe, based on research, that it's genetic. But again, it's only less than 1% of europeans that invent everything, the rest of the Europeans are not creative or geniuses. So then, if 99% of Europeans are no more inventive than East Asians, but only the 1%, then this makes an interesting statistic.
Of course, gene pools are not stagnant and the reproductive patterns of each generation affect the mental traits of the next generation, for better or worse. Currently within European society, the brightest are reproducing at below replacement birthrates, while the least intelligent are the most prolific. So, a time will come down the line when Europeans no longer are genetically successful.
Nah, I don't think anyone could stop innovation at this point, even an oppressively evil Republican regime that stressed "family values." It's too easy today to simply leave and conduct your research elsewhere. If you have a useful idea, you'll find funding to investigate it somewhere, even if not from the Bush administration. The medieval Chinese didn't have this option.selfAdjoint said:I think the fall back, which was after all temporary, had nothing to do with persistent qualities like IQ or even traditional culture, butwas due to repeated invasions from the North. The Mongols and Manchus who ruled for much of the second half of the last millennium had an anti-intellectual streak that permitted Confucian "family values" administration but suppressed technological novelty. There's a lesson there for us all.
You are definitely wrong. Who invented '0'. You say "book", who invented the printing machine? Guttenberg stole(pardon me) it from Chineese. The art of plastic surgery was known first in India. The English stole the concept and introduced it to world. Gun powder, compass were not Uropean inventions. There are many medicine systems in India that are far better than Allopathy.Scientific Method said:Virtually all of the sciences were invented by a small handful of creative high IQ Europeans. Just open up a chemistry or physics book: every equation was invented by someone of European descent. successful.
No, there really was a decline East of the Urals after about 1300. Maybe the black death triggered it, or whatever, but the new ideas from about 1350 were coming out of Europe, not Asia, and they were good ideas, too. It wasn't just hegemony that spread them, science works!chound said:The reason why Uropean scientists are famous is becoz, Urope ruled the world for a few centuries. So Uropean ideas are more profound and accepted.
Yes.The invention of the canon and its first use in the battle of Crécy (Britt-->French) in 1344...selfAdjoint said:No, there really was a decline East of the Urals after about 1300. Maybe the black death triggered it, or whatever, but the new ideas from about 1350 were coming out of Europe, not Asia, and they were good ideas, too. It wasn't just hegemony that spread them, science works!
But it is also true the people learn from history, and America has learned from history that "tables turn naturally every few centuries" so they are taking action to ensure that America's table never turns. One way they are doing this is by invading and economically manipulating any nation that enter a trend towards world-power status. Consider China: the Neo-Cons are already creating economic impedements for them. Also, the Pentagon is not speaking to Israel at the moment because Israel sold advanced technology to China, specifically drone planes. Basically, procedures are being carried out to ensure that China fails.jackle said:the truth is that the tables turn naturally every few centuaries. At the moment it is America's turn.
Didn't the English build the city of Hong Kong with all those tall buildings? So without the English, could China have created such a city by themselves?jackle said:Europeans invaded China in the masses when they were the superpower. They even stole Hong Kong in exchange for drugs (no they never really intended to give it back, I'm sure.). And look at what they did to the rest of the world. The British empire was enormous, and lets just say that they certainly didn't convict their soldiers for human rights issues.
None of their efforts made any difference.
China had every right to plunder Britian's tall buildings because Britian signed a contract saying they would hand it all over in the distant future, feeling sure that the time would never actually come round and when it did, nobody would reasonably expect them to hand it all over after such a long time.Scientific Method said:Didn't the English build the city of Hong Kong with all those tall buildings? So without the English, could China have created such a city by themselves?