I always see /misc/tards spamming it. What is the scholarly consensus on it?
How come italy is high up for contributing some paintings in the “renaissance” but ancient people who laid the foundations of society and civilization aren't?
Redpill me on this graph
I always see /misc/tards spamming it. What is the scholarly consensus on it?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
They'll claim that it is IQ that is the hidden variable, but the reality is that it is the invention of liberalism that is the true cause because liberal democracy is the only political system that allows a society to have peace and prosperity long enough for people to invent anything.
The entire thread and replies are of course mentally retarded. Rushton claimed Indonesia is white. Mods have joined homosexualry.
Then why are there no more groundbreaking inventions now that we have unprecedented peace?
VR porn and blockchain tech is pretty advanced. You can make 1 million dollars in a week trading Bitcoin with high leverage. In the past you couldn't
>why are there no more groundbreaking inventions
wtf are you talking about?
I notice that dumb, insulated people who don't work in research or tech or any important fields tend to think this.
Cope. You will never invent anything.
> British researched knows more significant British figures than French ones.
Color me shocked.
Why would anyone take this graph seriously?
Is it any surprise that most Nobel Prize winners come from Sweden?
Pantheon results for comparison. I don't see “big four”, Italy is Russia tier.
>Japan and India
This website is an even bigger joke.
India is great mathematical power.
This one is for the earlier time period
What the hell happened to greece?
Also birthplace = ethnicity
What is this website called?
It's fucking retarded, there's no way to count shit like that unless you have a society that meticulously records things like patents and authorship accurately over the century, which means most of the world AND most of the centuries accounted in the graph are giving you woefully incomplete data.
Also the subjectivity inherent in deciding whether an event or individual or invention/work of art is significant is borderline on the level of what colour you like best.
>unless you have a society that meticulously records things like patents and authorship accurately over the century
Would a society that does meticulously records things not be more likely to be responsible for the innovations in the first place?
Record keeping and innovation are not separate variables. There were no societies that invented steam engines but just didn't feel like writing about it.
> which means most of the world AND most of the centuries accounted in the graph are giving you woefully incomplete data.
Data becomes less reliable the farther back you go, but why would that automatically favor Europe? Besides, the vast majority of human innovation comes from Europe after the 1500's when records were more reliable, you could attribute all innovations (even proven European ones) before that time to non-Europeans and it would still only move the percentage a few points.
>my issue is that it doesn't take population size into account.
That would just make India and China look worse.
it would also make nations from classical antiquity look better
This is full of fallacies and poorly made assumptions
>Would a society that does meticulously records things not be more likely to be responsible for the innovations in the first place?
By this assertion the data would necessarily be wrong and incomplete. Because if that was the case why are China and India not in the list as both regions are home to ancient civilizations with a long literary traditions, and in the case of the Chinese they were fanatical record keepers.
>Record keeping and innovation are not separate variables. There were no societies that invented steam engines but just didn't feel like writing about it.
Life is not a game of Civilization. You do not advance up a tech tree; inventions and technologies are discarded and forgotten all the time for whatever reason.
>Data becomes less reliable the farther back you go, but why would that automatically favor Europe? Besides, the vast majority of human innovation comes from Europe after the 1500's when records were more reliable, you could attribute all innovations (even proven European ones) before that time to non-Europeans and it would still only move the percentage a few points.
Ridiculous. Firstly, it would not favor Europe. Secondly, what possible data do you even have to support the assertion that most innovations came from Europe other than this poorly constructed graph?
>Germanic Europe & Germanic America vs Latin Europe & Latin America.
Would southern Europe be better off if south America was pure southern European instead of mixed mutts?
Even if I accepted this as true on its face, I have no reason to care about it. Literally why should I care?
my issue is that it doesn't take population size into account. The ancient world had so many "significant figures in the scientific inventories", but the population size of all the mediterranean civilizations combined was smaller than modern Italy (or Britain, Germany, France).
Here's the redpill on your graph
I've looked at this graph for a long time and I don't get it. I even reverse searched it and still don't understand.
Please can someone explain this to me? I am mentally slow and need a very simplistic answer
I believe it's saying that progress shouldn't be compared on an absolute scale, and that white supremacists ignore this to embellish the truth of their claims.
Basically, the effort and genius required to invent the wheel for a prehistoric cave-dweller is being claimed as much greater than the effort and genius required to invent the automobile for a 19th century industrial baron. Progress depends on many things, like population size, the economy allowing for inventions to take place and for inventors to sustain themselves, previous inventions, how well educated the population is, etc.
As such, the author claims that white people only had such a technological growth because they where standing on the shoulder of giants, that is, they had a society that had evolved to the point where it could reach the industrial revolution due to past technological and societal inventions. Once said event happened, this past knowledge could be used to further increase their knowledge and create an exponential technological growth. If correctly scaled for this, the author claims that the achievements of the white people were normal and the natural expected results for the situation they found themselves in, not the result of white intelectual superiority.
Is he right? idk it's hard to measure this stuff and it's not like we have many independent data points to actually draw conclusions, for all we know white people might have squandered their position or might have pulled a miracle.
To elaborate on the "shoulder of giants" part, those giants are the people who perfected society and all the arts involved, like agriculture, manufacturing, metallurgy and such, who might be from an entirely different ethnicity.
>I am mentally slow and need a very simplistic answer
Basically it's saying that progress builds onto itself at an exponential rate, so ranking nationalities based on quantity of inventions is stupid because it takes as much effort to create 6 technologies when you start with 3 as it takes to create 72 when you start with 9, thus you shouldn't rank the people who invented 72 more techs higher than their ancestors who invented 6 of the 9 they started with.
It uses citations as a metric, which were most common for modern individuals and were extremely few in ancient works since ancient works were limited too. Meanwhile you had 200 papers on 1-2 inventions full of citations not so long ago
>What is the scholarly consensus on it?
The ancient world is Julius Caesar. Europe is Octavian.
It's a crude way to quantify something that should be so obvious as to go without saying.
lmao. there's your redpill.
It's like those graphs of terrorism that start in 2002 where they leave out any Muslim accomplishments and say that white guys are responsible for everything
Calling the domestication of humans "Human Accomplishments" is pretentious.
The number of morons who take that at face-value is pathetic. "Ah well, it says Significant Figures, so that's totally what it's objectively measuring."
>How come italy is high up
The source for basically all his data is number of references in different Western encyclopedias. He even admitted at points that his framework (like tracking named composers/musicians) was not remotely universally applicable, and that many regions were simply excluded from any consideration.
>number of references in different Western encyclopedias
This being a source for that.
And here's his source list for Chinese and Japanese art. The only two non-Western cultures with art, according to the Weeb who wrote it.
How do they define "significant figures" and "significant events"?
Those are such vague and broad terms that any attempt at counting them will most likely be biased as fuck.
>Percentage of all persons mentionned
>Goes up to 600%
Is that an ironic image?
Holy shit people are uneducated as fuck. The vast majority of inventions came from the ancient greeks (yes, even the steam engine in alexandria) and also from ancient egypt and some from mesopotamia. Many inventions were lost after the fall of the ancient greek/roman civilization (476 was just the final destruction of the state, the ancient greeek/roman civilization died much earlier as it was entirely transformed when it's cultural foundations were destroyed first by the roman state and then by christianity, in the same way that the great western civilization of XV - XX centuries are dead now and the current western culture is transformed beyond recognition).
Greece was a little blip, but the vast majority of innovations were from the renaissance onwards. Greece didn't even have the windmill, printing press or mechanical clock. They did not have the saddle tree, horse collar, stirrup or heavy plow either, which meant agriculture and the economy was very limited.Then when the renaissance came around it exploded, Italian mathematicians solved a plethora of ancient puzzles the Greeks could not, inventors and engineers worked their way up, through cannons, wind powered sawmills and the like to steam engines. Actual functioning steam engines with pistons that could pump water out of mines not the toy the Greeks had.
Can we lay the fucking aeolipile meme to rest?
Europe was ahead of the curve in the 15th century and remained ahead of the curve for 500 years until modern technology spread itself to every corner of the globe, even so western countries are still the most developed and are still at the center of scientific and technological advancement, so it comes as no surprise the vast majority of scientific advancements were made by Europeans.
This does not mean Europeans are inherently 50 times superior, there are various other factors at play. An analogy might be the dotcom bubble. There were many talented programmers and web designers, but people only need 1 search engine, 1 social media site, 1 video site, once one increased in popularity it snowballed and became the premier service of this kind. It was similar with technology, Europe just needed to have decent geography and be the first to develop key advancements and it began a feedback loop centered in Europe until jet travel and telecommunications spread technology across the globe making geographical location less relevant.
If Europeans have any inherent superiorities, this is poor evidence of it. Better to look at academic achievement, genetics and so on.
A lot of their definitions are pathetically general.
>I invented gravity
Any retard can see gravity exists.
There is evidence ancient civilizations had that as well.
Most bullshit invention ever.
Europe had coal.
>spinning Jenny/trivial mechanical devices
Arabs invented a bunch of water and wind tech that did the same thing.
A lot of these are hopelessly basic or combined with other inventions.
99% of European inventions are due to history books writing down every trivial event that happened.