View Single Post
  #2  
Unread March 24th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Margaret McGhee Margaret McGhee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 271
Default Now, this is interesting.

From the reviews that you pointed to and the enclosed quote
Quote:
These findings in Lynn's latest book have profound geopolitical significance. They imply it may simply not be possible to transmit Western-style democratic and economic systems to the populations of Latin America and Moslem North Africa and the Middle East, let alone sub-Saharan Africa.
Then, you said,
Quote:
And Lynn confirms other sources that in any IQ measurements: the northern Orient shelters the brightest.
If this is true why is it that northern Oriental cultures for the last several thousand years seem to have had some form of dynastic totalitarian regime - which are essentially more highly organized versions of the mafia - and totally controlled economies. I could be wrong about that but I can't recall any kind of non-totalitarian government in these regions in the history I am familiar with.

Democracy seems to have first germinated in Greece, a southern mid-eastern mediterranean region at a time when northern Europe was populated by warlike barbarian tribes - and far south of those northern climes supposedly more conducive to IQ bloom. Democratic thinking (though not democracy) was then resurrected in (relatively dumber than the northern Orient) France and England. It finally blossomed forth in a functional government in America. One hunderd years later we were importing Chinese laborers for the grunge-work of building our railroads. We mistreated them badly and denied them any of the blessings of democratic citizenship. Most died here and were buried in their own special graveyards. At that same enlightened time we were importing thousands of slaves from Africa.

Now, our democracy has thrived for little more than two hunderd years. But, even with our bright example of success, the higher IQ Chinese have only recently decided to implement some free market reforms (so the leadership can tap into the global cash flow, not for egalitarian reasons I am sure) while still retaining tight state control over people's lives.

It seems according to the model presented (high IQ = capacity for enlightened democracy, low IQ = only capable of totalitarian corruption) the Chinese would have figured out Democracy and free markets a few thousand years ago and would have taught our ancestors all about it (if they thought they were smart enough to understand such advanced principles) - and the Ashkenazim would have been running Europe long before Hitler came to power.

I'm not questioning the science showing IQ differences by race - just the ideological conclusions that seem to come from it. And I'm pointing out that world history seems to say that cultural influences were far stronger than IQ in determining government organization and economic systems. Am I missing something important here?

Margaret

Last edited by Margaret McGhee; March 24th, 2006 at 08:28 PM.
Reply With Quote