Ideology and Racial Differences?

[Petalpusher]

Well precisely. There are lots of factors besides average IQ rates that determine a society's prosperity and success.

But is there really? It's the big question... besides anecdotical occurences you hand picked, a basic IQ map still correlates almost perfectly with developpement on a global scale.





And HDI is a very poor metric for fine details, that makes the Baltic countries look like intermediate with Gabon compared to where i live, which is obviously not the case. But on continental and planetary level it still works.

We can all surely agree that East Asians and Black Africans are different races to Europeans with little or no room for confusion, but what about the difference between Europeans and MENAs, which arguably gets people even more heated up than differences between Europeans and other major racial groups? Like I said, there are some ethnic groups and nations which are difficult to classify as either European or MENA at all.

MENA are mostly Caucasians, just with various level of African or other tidbits, from almost none to 20%. What would be weird is they look completely different, what else could they be? They are not African, Asian or Oceanian, they are primarly Caucasian, just not fully. They simply look what they are, but they still generally look different overall than Europeans.

[Mortimer]

Petalpusher do you think this global maps of IQ and wealth were studied mostly and used mostly by westerners or white people can you tell me any non whites who do these same things write such books and say the same?

[Tooting Carmen]

Shouldn't China be much wealthier than it is based on IQ? (Yes I know it is improving rapidly, but still many of its Western regions in particular are still prety impoverished). And what about DPRK?

[Straightman]

Petalpusher do you think this global maps of IQ and wealth were studied mostly and used mostly by westerners or white people can you tell me any non whites who do these same things write such books and say the same?

What is that supposed to prove? Why would they do something that might make them look bad? Maybe that would only make sense for a notorious body shamer like yourself. Are white scholars not good enough for the likes of you?

[Tooting Carmen]

MENA are mostly Caucasians, just with various level of African or other tidbits, from almost none to 20%. What would be weird is they look completely different, what else could they be? They are not African, Asian or Oceanian, they are primarly Caucasian, just not fully. They simply look what they are, but they still generally look different overall than Europeans.

But regarding what I call the 'European-MENA' transitional groups, apart from some Mongoloid admixture in Turks, what other non-Caucasoid admixture is there? Certainly, most Cypriots just look like a more uniformly brunet version of Greeks and Southern Italians, and I'd even go so far as to say that Georgians and North Caucasians mostly look like a more uniformly brunet version of Romanians and Bulgarians rather than anything more 'exotic'. (Armenians and Azeris are more Iranian-shifted, but still aren't significantly non-Caucasoid as such).

[Straightman]

Shouldn't China be much wealthier than it is based on IQ? (Yes I know it is improving rapidly, but still many of its Western regions in particular are still prety impoverished). And what about DPRK?

Communism! Ever heard of it?

[Mortimer]

Shouldn't China be much wealthier than it is based on IQ? (Yes I know it is improving rapidly, but still many of its Western regions in particular are still prety impoverished). And what about DPRK?

You made some very good points i liked. For example that you might be perceived as socially still white or black as triracial people only denie it when they attribute a foreign influences to black IQ or achievement those same people likely perceive slightly mixed people as black as the aframs or afro brasilians petalpusher in his society probably himself he just needs something else now for his arguments

[Tooting Carmen]

Communism! Ever heard of it?

Not the whole explanation either, though certainly an important one. As has been discussed before, China was pretty poor long before Mao came along, DPRK until the 1980's was actually wealthier than ROK, and the economic gap between Western and Eastern Europe precedes Lenin and even Marx by several centuries.

[Mortimer]

What is that supposed to prove? Why would they do something that might make them look bad? Maybe that would only make sense for a notorious body shamer like yourself. Are white scholars not good enough for the likes of you?

If they do not do it because it would make them look bad do you think whites do it then to make themselfes look good or because they have biases and agenda even if only subconsciously and they think they are objective?

[Petalpusher]

Petalpusher do you think this global maps of IQ and wealth were studied mostly and used mostly by westerners or white people can you tell me any non whites who do these same things write such books and say the same?

That's the point, even if you believe all this is some sort of conspiration of studies to make non white look bad, blabla... developpement, wealth and achievements correlate with it and that, is undeniable. What would be the odds...to match it globally to that level by some incredible draw of luck? Let's be honest, we all know it's zero.

Of course humans are more successful once they reach a certain threshold of intelligence, and probably at a higher level than just wealth (don't really need that high IQ for that), when they have a tendency to produce geniuses. It's really strange to try deny that, even in reverse, as if success would result in higher IQ, it's the same outcome in the end.