how did china build its infrastructure ?

[GodlessBastard]

Don't click on the link if you have a weak stomach.

Indonesian maid tortured in Saudi Arabia, another beaten to death // Current

"Nov 20, 2010 ... Violent Arrests in Chinatown: The Beat - video ... Indonesian maid tortured in Saudi Arabia, another beaten to death ..."

What else do you expect from Saudi barbarians. This is what happens when you give petrodollars to a medieval society.

 

[Martian2]

What else do you expect from Saudi barbarians. This is what happens when you give petrodollars to a medieval society.

The Saudis know that everybody needs their oil. In a sense, they are above international law and norms. No one dares to pressure a country with the world's largest proven oil reserves.

 

[CardSharp]

Unfortunately, right now, they have everybody over a barrel.

Hahaha good one. That story is very sad though, I doubt that is what she wanted when she set off to Saudi Arabia for a better life.

Curiously I found this in the comment section of that story.

Again warning graphic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Omaha_courthouse_lynching.jpg


I never heard about this story, even when I was living in America.
Omaha Race Riot of 1919 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“1918: Five negro women, 58 negro men and 4 white men lynched. No member of any mob was convicted. In only two cases were trials held"

 

[no_name]

Saudia Arabia does spend alot on military. If someday they fight with Iran both being oil country then third parties will be winner.

 

[CardSharp]

Saudia Arabia does spend alot on military. If someday they fight with Iran both being oil country then third parties will be winner.

About 31% of the population is made up of foreign nationals living in Saudi Arabia.[39] A large portion of the expatriate population is South Asian or of South Asian ancestry, including Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. In addition, there are some citizens of Asian, Northeast African, Russians,Turks, Iranians, North Africans and Sub-Saharan ancestry are in Hijaz (Jeddah, Makkah and Madina).

I doubt when the money runs out that these folks are going to stick around to fight for them. An non-inclusive society like that is unlikely to garner much loyalty.

and these people just up and go home

There are over eight million migrants from countries all around the world (including non-Muslims):[40] Indian: 1.3 million, Pakistani: 900,000, Bangladeshi: 400,000, Filipino: 500,000, Egyptian: 900,000, Yemeni: 800,000, Indonesian: 250,000, Sri Lankan: 350,000, Sudanese: 250,000, Syrian: 100,000 and Turkish: 80,000.[41] There are around 100,000 Westerners in Saudi Arabia,

 

[ThatDamnGood]

Wrong again. Every single IQ test includes linguistic sections, which depend heavily on one's education level. Spatial tests only test the right brain, not the linguistic left brain functions. The logic sections test the frontal cortex functions and also depend heavily on linguistic ability.

Personally, I lean towards the IQ tests what IQ tests test viewpoint. And I happen to do very very well on them. But your point is incorrect. For example, where is the linguistic content with the ubiquitous Ravens Progressive Matrix?

 

[Developereo]

What do you mean by “Productivity Quotient”?

An IQ test measures the extent to which a person has developed their innate abilities. A big-brained person who did not develop any problem-solving skills, language competency, or logical reasoning will do badly on an IQ test. They will also find it harder to be productive in society -- at least in leadership roles. It doesn't mean that people with low IQ are less productive, but they are less likely to lead or innovate.

Therefore, an IQ test actually measures an individual's preparedness to contribute productively to society. Hence the term productivity quotient.

IQ measures largely the innate inheritability – scientifically indisputable! (many research out there over the course of about a century, around the world! You can easily google it). That’s the whole point.

Still no links, eh?

Lingustic ? What in English? German? Or Latin or Cantonese? linguistic section doesn’t mean it must be a writen form per se all the time. It tests the sensitivity to the meanings, sounds, and rhythms of words. The methods deployed can be very diverse whenever dealing with illiterates. Illiterates can talk and hear, can’t they?

Linguistic competence tests the subject's ability to process semantic content in their language of choice. It is not about 'sensitivity, sounds and rhythms'. Good God!

It is also a prerequisite for testing logical thinking skills since problems of any significant complexity can only be communicated using language.

A rubbish source!
[...]
I am almost convinced that this “source” you quote is also one of numerous Black Supermacist affiliate websites out there which even claim that Black people invented the Chinese civilisation before Han Chinese came along, right?

I don't know what is your obsession with black people, but the study was conducted by Columbia University (Ivy League) and Northwestern University. If you don't know what Ivy League is, you can ask one of your high-IQ friends out there.

Cro Magnons usually refer to forefathers of Modern Europeans instead of Modern Humans as you wrote.

Adition: Whereas why Cro Magnons displaced Neanderthals desearves an independent thread , IQ was likely the main reason ( that Neanderthals have larger brain size than Cro Magnons is not conlcusive yet, and likely wrong) apart from other minor ones, inter-breeding among the two for example is a part of the facts though, as Prof Pääbo ( a Swedish scientist) - led team of Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology demonstrated recently ( in2010) that between 1% and 4% of the DNA of non-Africans today came from Neanderthals.

Modern humans came out of Africa around 60 kya. The group that went east to Asia gave rise to South/East Asians. The other group gave rise to Middle Easterners and Europeans and is called Cro Magnons. It's all the same people and I used the term only because of reference to European Neanderthals.

The debate about interbreeding v/s extermination of Neanderthals is still ongoing, but the point remains that modern humans dominate the globe, not the bigger-brained (confirmed statistically, no debate) Neanderthals.

Dominant doesn't equate to prevalent, one could be prevalent in a region simplely because of being the only major one in the region, as in fact those (Maya, Egypt, India, Near East Mesopotamia) were, but not dominant since its main rival was not in the region yet.

Actually that argument demolishes the superiority claim of East Asians, since ancient China only survived in isolation and fell to just about every invader. By contrast, South American, Middle Eastern and North African civilizations thrived in a cosmopolitan atmosphere of extensive trading and inter-civilization contact and conflict.

I knew it that it would cause some criticisms when I put it very loosely with that “entire history”, and “Germanic” which should be revised to “North-of-Alp Europeans” to be more precise.

Do you want to break it to the Greeks and Romans, or shall I, that they are north of the Alps?

I am sure you will now revise your statement to include all Europeans, even those south of the Alps, but will fight tooth and nail not to cross the Mediterranean and include ancient Egypt, lest those pesky Africans come into the picture!

Nevertheless, my initial statement remains largely valid that “basically it’s a two-horse race throughout the most part of history so far”,

Your claim is hogwash! You ignore 90% of history to focus on the recent 10%. 90% of history was dominated by the smaller-brained humans who produced the greatest discoveries and innovations of their time. The recent 10% has been dominated by the Caucasians. What it proves is that brain size has absolutely no correlation with knowledge or scientific advancement. Culture and civilization are far better indicators of such achievements, regardless of brain size.

if you research further into the IQ field together with world's history and pre-history, all the pre-historic great civilisations such as Maya, Egypt, India, Near East ( Mesopotamia),etc. didn’t require more than 90 average IQ to establish and maintain due to the mild weather there immediately after the latest Ice Age which made basic form of agriculture ( to grow food instead of to hunt food) readily / easily available. Hence being earlier and "the only kid on the block" doesn't have to mean being better.

Sorry, but I don't think I have seen a sillier anthropological argument in a very long time!

Winning a battle or war doesn't imply having higher IQ either, even though under normal circunstances higher IQ people usually win wars due to better planning (e.g. 1962 Sino-Indian conflict) and/or better technologies. Yet it is based on the assumption that higher IQ people want to fight in the first place. Imperial China lost two wars against machus, mongols; Romans lost wars in the end; ... ( many other reasons as well such as numerical difference). That doesn't mean they have lower IQ. They just didn't have the moral to fight at a time. Historians use a special word to describe this kind of situations - "decadence"

So, when the big brains win, it's because of big brains but, when they lose, it's a fluke. Got it!

Though with occasional major & minor feats and some geniuses, the general achievements (in maths, sciences, arts, literature, civil technologies, military technologies, and beyond) of aforementioned civilisations have never rivaled, let alone surpassed, that of Ancient Greece ( sciences, arts, philosophies, etc), Imperial China (paper, printing books, arts/ literature, iron and steel-making, credit banking with standard bank notes, gunpowder, missles, compass, etc), and that of European modern states which made the modern world of today, far from to be in the same league honestly, according to most influential historians.

With that paragraph you demonstrated your utter ignorance of scientific and cultural history. Do you know that the core Western literature and philosophies can trace their way to Egyptian and Sumerian legends? Where do you suppose the all-pervasive base-60 (60 seconds, 60 degrees0 comes from? Electricity, optics, hospitals, anesthetics, money, etc, etc, etc.

In fact look at everything you see and touch today in everywhere, most of them (shall I say >95%) could be traced to either East Asian or Northern European (& its derivatives e.g. USA) origin.

Well, duh! Of course we would be using the contemporary inventions, but all knowledge is built upon earlier foundations. I am afraid you have an extremely simplistic view of human history and human intelligence.

Human Genome Project would progress to such a high level that we humans for the first time in history could pinpoint the exact genes within our bodies that are responsible for the objective differences found in intelligence ( hence IQ) with a decade's time. Scientists of China, the EU and USA are standing at the forefront of this achievement.

Go easy on the science fiction, my friend...

 

[Developereo]

Personally, I lean towards the IQ tests what IQ tests test viewpoint. And I happen to do very very well on them. But your point is incorrect. For example, where is the linguistic content with the ubiquitous Ravens Progressive Matrix?

I don't know much about those tests, but the wiki article says that people with autism do better than 'normal' people, which seems to indicate that the tests measure a very specific ability, i.e. pattern matching and progression. While it is an important skill, I doubt that it would be an indicator of general purpose 'intelligence' or productivity.

 

[below_freezing]

Yet More on the Heritability and Malleability of IQ

Scroll to the end for the conclusion if you prefer to read about that instead of the calculations.

1.The most common formulae used to estimate heritability are wrong, either for trivial mathematical reasons (such as the upward bias in the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins' correlations), or for substantive ones (the covariance of monozygotic twins raised apart neglects shared environments other than the family, such as maternal and community effects).
2.The best estimate I can find puts the narrow heritability of IQ at around 0.34 and the broad heritability at 0.48.
3.Even this estimate neglected heteroskedasticity, gene-environment interactions, gene-environment covariance, the existence of shared environment beyond the family, and the possibility that the samples being used are not representative of the broader population.
4.Now that people are finally beginning to model gene-environment interactions, even in very crude ways, they find it matters a lot. Recall that Turkheimer et al. found a heritability which rose monotonically with socioeconomic status, starting around zero at low status and going up to around 0.8 at high status. Even this is probably an over-estimate, since it neglected maternal effects and other shared non-familial environment, correlations between variance components, etc. Under such circumstances, talking about "the" heritability of IQ is nonsense. Actual geneticists have been saying as much since Dobzhansky at least.
5.Applying the usual heritability estimators to traits which are shaped at least in part by cultural transmission, a.k.a. traditions, is very apt to confuse tradition with genetics. The usual twin studies do not solve this problem. Studies which could don't seem to have been done.
6.Heritability is completely irrelevant to malleability or plasticity; every possible combination of high and low heritability, and high and low malleability, is not only logically possible but also observed.
7.Randomized experiments, natural experiments and the Flynn Effect all show what competent regressions also suggest, namely that IQ is, indeed, responsive to purely environmental interventions.

 

[Speeder 2]

An IQ test measures the extent to which a person has developed their innate abilities. A big-brained person who did not develop any problem-solving skills, language competency, or logical reasoning will do badly on an IQ test.

You refuse to read my posts, don't you?

As I said many times earlier, tell me how 5-year-olds and 2-year-olds develop their competent language skills, problem-solving skills or logical thinking , in order to do IQ tests?

They will also find it harder to be productive in society -- at least in leadership roles. It doesn't mean that people with low IQ are less productive, but they are less likely to lead or innovate.

Therefore, an IQ test actually measures an individual's preparedness to contribute productively to society. Hence the term productivity quotient.

Good luck with your "productivity quaotient" hypothesis.

I am sure 2-year-olds East Asian kids , on average, are on the top of your productive charts.

Still no links, eh?

How lazy can you be?

Linguistic competence tests the subject's ability to process semantic content in their language of choice. It is not about 'sensitivity, sounds and rhythms'. Good God!

It's all about 'sensitivity, sounds and rhythms'. e.g. 5-year-olds aacross racial groups in general barely could write , except perhaps "mammy" and "daddy"... How do you suggest they took IQ tests? My goodness

It is also a prerequisite for testing logical thinking skills since problems of any significant complexity can only be communicated using language.

people develop problem-soving skills mostly unintentionally when he/she grows up. e.g. when you put a napkin on the face of a 6 -months-old white or black baby, statistically, they would soon move their heads quite violently, trying to get rid of that napkin in order to breathe smoothly ; however, when you do the same to an East Asian baby, statistically they seldom move trying to get rid of that napkin. Instead they would slightly turn their heads to the sides tin order to breathe better.

Yes, there was a very valid real-life study on this. This example , along with many others out there, althoguh originally developed for other purposes, it also proves in this case the differences on problem solving skills of babies from different racial groups.

Another example just out of my head - let one test 5 year olds of different racial groups in such a way: give them 5 minutes in total in the moring to go outside out of their beds. Ideally they have to dress up in clothes, wash their hands, comb their hair, eat something... and see how different racial group babies "arrange" their time ideally in order to do most things within the same 5 min limit , which group comes on top? --- this is a "logical thinking" and a "problem solving" experiment that I just came up with while I wrote.

Got the idea? See? one doesn't need to go to special schools in order to develop "problem solving and logical thinking"skills. People develop those skills naturally (innately) every single day when they grow up when they interact with any environment .

I don't know what is your obsession with black people, but the study was conducted by Columbia University (Ivy League) and Northwestern University. If you don't know what Ivy League is, you can ask one of your high-IQ friends out there.

I am not obseessed with any people. I write in order to discuss a topic rationally, not to flam.

Ivy league, huh? yeah right, let alone Ivy league, even American Academy of Sciences dare not publish so openly what they have found out over the last century on IQ with REAL statistics. Otherwise, they would be called "racists" , "Nazis" and be demonised with careers destroyed. This's the main problem btw with today's liberals-controled Western world alongwith their main stream media propaganda machines.


... yeah right, balck kids have average IQ of 108? You are funny! The truth is out there. You can't deny it and say that the Earth doesn't goes around the Sun. But truth is truth, it is science for goodness, no matter you like it no not.

Modern humans came out of Africa around 60 kya. The group that went east to Asia gave rise to South/East Asians. The other group gave rise to Middle Easterners and Europeans and is called Cro Magnons. It's all the same people and I used the term only because of reference to European Neanderthals.

The debate about interbreeding v/s extermination of Neanderthals is still ongoing, but the point remains that modern humans dominate the globe, not the bigger-brained (confirmed statistically, no debate) Neanderthals.

Pleeeeease! So you are saying "the debate is still ongoing" in the breath as " bigger-brained (confirmed statistically, no debate)" ??

Now i see why you always come back with long-debunked old songs, because you are very good at self-contradicting.

How many skulls of Neanderthals we have in total up to now? and it's "confirmed statistically, no debate"?

Do you want to break it to the Greeks and Romans, or shall I, that they are north of the Alps?

To discuss the differences and realtions btw acient Greeks and north-of-alp Europeans, we need a complete new thread, as there are huge amounts of materials/analysis that I can't afford enough time to explain them in detail here.

In short, take it as I said.

I am sure you will now revise your statement to include all Europeans, even those south of the Alps, but will fight tooth and nail not to cross the Mediterranean and include ancient Egypt, lest those pesky Africans come into the picture!

NO.

Why? I don't see any problem.

Your claim is hogwash! You ignore 90% of history to focus on the recent 10%. 90% of history was dominated by the smaller-brained humans who produced the greatest discoveries and innovations of their time. The recent 10% has been dominated by the Caucasians. What it proves is that brain size has absolutely no correlation with knowledge or scientific advancement. Culture and civilization are far better indicators of such achievements, regardless of brain size.

So my claim is hogwash. And yours is from heaven.

TIME has nothing to do with WHAT.

Sorry, but I don't think I have seen a sillier anthropological argument in a very long time!

To be honest, you really need to stop watching Simpsons, and pick up a serious book on the issue instead.

So, when the big brains win, it's because of big brains but, when they lose, it's a fluke. Got it!

Errr... right!

See? it's not that hard for you to get it, after all?

With that paragraph you demonstrated your utter ignorance of scientific and cultural history. Do you know that the core Western literature and philosophies can trace their way to Egyptian and Sumerian legends? Where do you suppose the all-pervasive base-60 (60 seconds, 60 degrees0 comes from? Electricity, optics, hospitals, anesthetics, money, etc, etc, etc.

Tell me which people invented Eat and Take Baths first? These are important items, agree? Answer: the first lucky living organism.

Likewise, 60 means something, so are 10-based, 16-based, binary, etc, etc, and so is that "zero"... but not huge, trust me. Early civilsations developed something first, because they were the first that came along in history. That doesn't prove that they are better.


So you are telling me Acient Egyptians invented electricity (btw, they are NOT all blacks); Sumerians legends invented optics?

Or African Zulus first used Hospitals in human history? Man, while you inform South African Bushmen that inside their mud huts, they probably would be thinking when sizing you up, well, at least they try to think, that which part of your legs is good for grills as the dinner.

Give you an example here to put it into perspectives: Many African villiagers today still do not have knowledge on how to make basic potteries themselves. Instead they are forced to use nature tools such as animal parts to hold water and food as they have been doing so for eons (according to the UN Aids organisations), while the first known practical potteries in world history that can still hold water today came from North CHina, dated around 16,000 B.C.

So we are 18,000 friggin light years ahead on that basic daily neccesity alone, still! Now you tell me that is due to "environmental difference", or "govenment policies"?! Or due to "productivity Qutient"?! Or that we have the same IQ on average, or better still, that "4-year-old Black kids have average IQ of 108" ?! Are you out of your mind?



As for "anesthetics, money, etc . etc... "well, i didn't know that you were into Chinese history?

Go easy on the science fiction, my friend...

No more drugs for you, my friend, no for this month.


( sorry for numerous typos above... if you excuse me, I won't correct them one by one as I am in a hurry)

 

[Abhishek_]

Speeder, what are your thoughts on inter-race marriages and the resulting off-springs?

 

[Honor]

Speeder, what are your thoughts on inter-race marriages and the resulting off-springs?

Sorry for the interruption!

IQ of mixed offspring = (Race A + Race B)/2

 

[CardSharp]

Sorry for the interruption!

IQ of mixed offspring = (Race A + Race B)/2

lol

but seriously intelligence is a complex polygenetic trait 1+1 maybe not equal 2.

Speeder, what are your thoughts on inter-race marriages and the resulting off-springs?

Don't worry about his opinion. Chinese people are by no means racial supremacists and there is a clear and documented bias/preference FOR mixed blood children. People think they are exotic and prettier. (look at the popularity of the of the Taiwanese half-Chinese popstars)

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Don't worry about his opinion. Chinese people are by no means racial supremacists and there is a clear and documented bias/preference FOR mixed blood children. People think they are exotic and prettier. (look at the popularity of the of the Taiwanese half-Chinese popstars)

Exactly. In my experience, Chinese parents tend to look favorably on mixed-race marriages.

So Chinese people are certainly not racial supremacists.

 

[ps80]

Exactly. In my experience, Chinese parents tend to look favorably on mixed-race marriages.

So Chinese people are certainly not racial supremacists.

Guys,

Are we still on the Chinese infrastructure thread?

Top three reasons for this Chinese achievement that I can think of are:
1. Keep focused on your goals
2. Hard work with dedication
3. "Never get flattered" attitude