Bzzzzz! Sorry, try again. Timbuktu was not “created” by Arabs, was not primarily a slave trade city, and is not one of only “some” cities in the area.
Nobody expects you to be an African history expert, but you can at least check Wikipedia. Their pages on African empires are pretty good. I lived in the former Sokoto Caliphate, descendent of the Bornu empire (1380-1893.) Previously, this was the Kanem empire (700-1387). These complex, cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic empires encompasses up to 10 million people and dozens of kingdoms, including great cities such as Kano (which impressed European explorers with how clean and neatly it was laid out). Interestingly, their political structures persist to this day.
I have no clue what this means. Mechanized agriculture didn’t exist anywhere until about 100 years ago.
What are you even trying to say? People everywhere always use what was cheap/available to build (thatch, adobe, bamboo, wood, etc) not simply stone.
[ol]
[li]Why is that odd?[/li][li]Everyone used stone to build (even railroad laying Europeans)[/li][/ol]
Add geography to the list of subjects where ignorance is displayed.
Timbuktu is Saharan, not sub-Saharan.
On the other hand, Mogadishu, Sofala, Zimbabwe, and others thrived south of the Sahara long before Arab traders or raiders visited them. In the first century, a Greek travel document refers to the Aksum Empire, and to cities along the Indian Ocean as far south as what is now Tanzania.
In this case, the African slaves had the advanced technology for growing rice and building water systems. The white plantation owners learned from them.
Salt, more than slaves. Timbuktu was a center of slave trading, but it was more famous for salt and gold. It also wasn’t founded by Arabs. We don’t know for sure who founded it, but it probably developed as a contact point/trading center between the Tuaregs and the inhabitants of the Niger River basin.
But there are plenty of other sub-saharan African cities. There was Walata, which was a Mende city and a fairly major trade terminus until it was overshadowed by Timbuktu. There was Gao, which was founded by one of the Songhay peoples, and was the center of a West African regional power. There was Axum, the first capital of Ethiopia, and before that, the kingdom that shared its name. There was the Shona city of Great Zimbabwe, which might have, at its peak, held up to 18,000 people.
After that, there was Zvongombe, the capital of the Mutapa Empire, which was a Zimbabwean successor state/former region that declared independence, which lasted until the Portuguese took it over.
When you say that sub-Saharan Africa didn’t have any cities, that’s difficult to reconcile with the facts. There were plenty of cities in sub-Saharan Africa, some independent, but more associated with dynastic kingdoms or regional or tribal confederations.
He basically argues that there is actually nothing bizarre about the idea of an entire population having an IQ average of 70. I have not yet heard a counter-argument that refutes this precise point that he makes, and I would like to hear it because I too am inclined to agree that the idea (at first) seems preposterous.
A counter-argument? Seriously? Other than the multitude of interactions that are made everyday?
The problem with Rushton’s argument (notice that few of his arguments are actually any good) is that while an individual or even a few 11 year olds can be supervised, an entire society of them cannot. They cannot transact everyday business. Most of human history was not industrialized. It was almost all small business conducted primarily by individuals or by small groups of individuals. Until quite recently, it was relatively rare to have more than a few dozen people all involved in the same business or course of action. Even armies were not historically standing armies but assembled as needed and disbanded as soon as no longer necessary.
So, no, it is not plausible that a majority of these people could have been thus supervised for the centuries of history we know they not only existed but thrived in various disparate and oftentimes advanced societies.
Based on your arguments, it is getting remarkably difficult to take your arguments seriously or to believe you are making them in good faith. Endlessly quoting Rushton does nothing to benefit your reputation here as a poster.
Perhaps you would like to cite…studies…instead of Psychology Today?
Editorializing is cheap and easy.
Most counter claims against the idea that human populations can have disparate intellects focus on two straw men:
There is no biological definition of race, so you can’t define two populations to study with any biological meaning
There is a wealth of diversity among african populations
Neither of these have a thing to do with an argument from biology/evolution that any two SIRE groups might have disparate chances to draw a gene from their source pool and therefore disparate outcomes driven by those genes.
It’s academic and professional suicide to propose genetic differences, and everyone wants to reassure everyone else there are none. Unfortunately, mother nature does not care about those sorts of niceties.
So roughly speaking an average national IQ greater than 75 would do the trick?
And what exactly would happen or not happen in a country with average IQ less than that threshold which would make it unable to support, for example, a few writers?
I think that you can still have “commerce” in a country with a very low average IQ. Depending on how you define “commerce” of course. To me it means that a significant fraction of the population regularly trades goods and/or services for other goods and/or services.
How do you define “commerce”?
No, I should have pluralized the word “language.”
I meet many people like that right here in the United States every week. Perhaps the problem is your experience not mine.
Well would you agree that for the most part, the range of intelligence found in Black Americans falls within “typical examples of the human race”?
Bruce Lahn’s research around the haplogroup D variation of MCPH1 is indeed a pretty interesting long story short. He implied that the high penetration in eurasian populations since the appearance of the D variant 40kya suggested a very high selection pressure, in turn implying a positive advantage for descendant lines. He was more or less mercilessly castigated for pursuing research dangerously close to “intelligence genes,” and found himself “pursuing other lines of research” in order to protect any academic career at all.
MCPH1 haplogroup D is not some sort of simple intelligence gene, the presence of which promotes high intellect and the absence of which means you are a dummie. But it is a good example of two things: disparate genes which control neurophysiology exist and exist in markedly different proportions among haplogroups suggesting a positive benefit; and studying those genes is fraught with academic hazard.
It’s a catch-22: You will have to have an ironclad specific gene-function laid out before the academic world is going to accept any genetic hypothesis, but to get there you will need stepwise research for which you are not going to get either funding or academic position. It is simply untenable in today’s world to promote research proving that genetics underpins observed skillsets among human populations.
I suspect we’ll dance around this a while and stumble to the right conclusion. Science usually finds a way to win. In the meantime we’ll just keep up the egalitarian rhetoric, reminding one another how we’re just one big diverse family, and leaving our long history of migration patterns with evolutionary changes specific to descendant groups to the back pages. For now, Creationism is the egalitarian’s best friend, with recent origin of man and minimal evolution as their central tenets.
Or maybe the sports pages. The idea that genes underpin sports advantages is gaining a bit of traction. (Sports are a lot safer than intellect as a topic, apparently). Next on my reading list is “The Sports Gene” by David Epstein, but I don’t know what his take is yet. That there is a book with that title is already a nice first step for the egalitarian crowd.
In the meantime, we’ll keep looking for reasons why only special SIRE groups struggle with equalizing performance outcomes despite equivalent opportunity. The NBA will remain mostly black with a smattering of eastern european subgroups (but the Inuit probably aren’t going to be the next subgroup represented in the NBA); the people who did the mars lander engineering will look white and asian; LSAT and MCAT scores will continue to show marked disparity by SIRE group despite attendance at identical colleges; PhDs for blacks will rise in social fields but struggle in STEM sciences; SAT scores within the exact same school will parse among SIRE groups; and black children from wealthy and educated families will struggle to have average scores that are even close to whites and asians from poor and undereducated families.
And we’ll have some very soothing rhetoric to explain how the stubborn persistence of these patterns has “no genetic evidence.”
If we can’t get over the idea that we simply must sort ourselves by SIRE groups, we need to get over the idea that all SIRE groups have the same gene pools driving the same potential maximum skillsets. It doesn’t work that way anywhere else in the animal kingdom, and we’re just another set of animals with our own history of migration, isolation and evolution.
“He simply lied” seems a bit strong. But OK…I’m not sure a preference for condom size is at the heart of any of my own opinions.
For anyone actually interested in reading a summary of Rushton’s key positions and research, see here.
It’s always helpful to read both sides of a hot topic, in my opinion, defended on each side by the most ardent promoters of a given viewpoint.
It couldn’t be possible there could be social factors and family values and support to blame could it?
There was a study posted in one of these endless “blacks are dumb” threads that showed the children of black African immigrants had scores similar to white students before the teen years, but after their scores fell to match African American students average. I can’t locate it right now and don’t have the time but that was interesting.
Not mercilessly castigated. Laughed at, for the reason I mentioned above. People will fund controversial lines of inquiry, but not fruitless, foolish ones.
Lahn couldn’t deliver the goods. It’s quite likely that no one can, in this case, since human brain function is so complex, and so dependent on a variety of internal and external factors.
At a minimum, since 75 is the threshold for mild disability.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
And what exactly would happen or not happen in a country with average IQ less than that threshold which would make it unable to support, for example, a few writers?
[/quote]
A society that was was about half mentally disabled wouldn’t be able to harvest crops, engage in trade, organize itself into a stable hierarchy, or indeed defend itself. It would cease to exist in short order.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I think that you can still have “commerce” in a country with a very low average IQ. Depending on how you define “commerce” of course. To me it means that a significant fraction of the population regularly trades goods and/or services for other goods and/or services.
How do you define “commerce”?
[/quote]
That definition works for the purposes of this discussion. Mildly retarded people in the U.S. get assigned guardians and caseworkers because they can’t manage their own financial affairs, conduct transactions, pay bills, budget their money, and so forth. Who’s doing that for half of Africa?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I meet many people like that right here in the United States every week. Perhaps the problem is your experience not mine.
[/quote]
Have you ever met someone with mild retardation? You seem to insist that it’s just everyday stupidity. It’s not.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Well would you agree that for the most part, the range of intelligence found in Black Americans falls within “typical examples of the human race”?
[/QUOTE]
As has been repeatedly shown, not just in this thread but in the broader world, Rushton is totally discredited as a researcher. Continuing to use his questions shows you have an unusual and deficient definition of the word ‘interesting’.
If you are truly asking in good faith, how about having a look at the answers here, at the gobs of research that aren’t hideously flawed (i.e. everybody but Rushton) and critically examining that work rather than merely accepting it as true.
Funny how you keep using the “egalitarian” straw man and equate your opponents to creationists. It’s funny, of course, because you’re the one making a claim that is unsupported by evidence- we make no claims.
It’s also funny that outcomes NOW are special and perfectly reflect genetic tendencies, whether in academics, athletics, crime, or economics… when the “social order” was totally different decades ago, and Jews were the best basketball players, or the Chinese were the poorest, or the Irish were the most likely to be involved in crime, or a myriad of other scrambled results- that was all social and “nurture”. Today, somehow, the social systems just happen to perfectly reflect your (fictional) “genetic reality”.
Sorry, but you’re the one making unsupported claims- you’re the one that has, with zero genetic evidence, come to the conclusion that black people are genetically intellectually inferior. We’re not going to join you in that conclusion with no genetic evidence… and I’m not sure why you insist so strongly on an unsupported hypothesis.
Cite? I don’t remember a single reaction that would fall into the category of “laughed at.” He was–and is–considered a first-rate academician, and his work regarding MCPH1 was not ridiculed nor scholastically demeaned. It was simply regarded as too controversial–and by some, insufficient to draw any conclusions. But as I mentioned above, only a series of careful research will tie a link between intelligence and a specific geneset. You can be sure egalitarians will fight to make sure such research is not directly funded, and that any moves in that direction are cut off. That’s what happened to Bruce Lahn. Not “laughed at,” at all.