I can tell that it is junk just by your summary of it.
If the thesis is that the dumb died off under evolutionary pressures it should be easy enough to prove. All that needs to be shown is that Africans have a broader range of intelligence levels, no?
Hoppe is off base here.
First, his IQ hypothesis is unlikely on its own, but his climes explanation is simply false. Why do Eskimos not rule the earth? Or better yet, why did the industrial revolution occur in England and not Finland?
“China’s, Japan’s and Korea’s great performance does not go against the genetic advantage theory, on the contrary, it completely supports it. Eastern Asian people have the highest average IQ in the world, from ~100 in china to a superhuman ~108 in japan.”
Yes it does.
One, it disproves the hypothesis that the highest IQ race develops the fastest. Two, it disproves the climes theory of IQ.
(But IQ is deliberately scaled to make 100 the average, so averaging a 100 is not exactly a feat.)
Southern, the thesis breaks down completely when you look at Native American History. Which was the exact opposite. Those who went towards warmer climate became a more advance civilization and those who stayed up north lived in huts. As a matter of fact it breaks down completely by just looking at history!
No it doesnt. The technology level possessed by the native americans was at a level sufficient to allow them to thrive in the warmer climates. Their technology was insufficient to allow them to thrive in colder climates. Survive yes, thrive no.
If the thesis is that the dumb died off under evolutionary pressures it should be easy enough to prove. All that needs to be shown is that Africans have a broader range of intelligence levels, no?
Thats not the theory. No one died off. The populations deviated from one another due to environmental pressure. Those who were able to adapt the existing technology were able to move further north where they were not competing with other groups.
One, it disproves the hypothesis that the highest IQ race develops the fastest.
If all else was equal then it would. But China and Japan were at about the same level technologicly untill they isolated themselves. IQ theory does not claim that intellegence is the only reason certain groups advance at a faster pace. Other factors are just as important.
Two, it disproves the climes theory of IQ.
How so?
“No it doesnt. The technology level possessed by the native americans was at a level sufficient to allow them to thrive in the warmer climates. Their technology was insufficient to allow them to thrive in colder climates. Survive yes, thrive no.”
…I am speechless :], but then again I never really liked those damn Mongoloids! Burn EM! WE NEED TO SEND EM BACK TO CHINA!
ahh the Irony
[WARNING I AM BEING SARCASTIC]
Edited
Does anyone know how the new system work? Can’t seem to qoute!
If that is what he says he might be on to something.
"The technology level possessed by the native americans was at a level sufficient to allow them to thrive in the warmer climates. "
And yet it is in the fertile warmer areas of the world around the middle east, North Africa and India that the first agricultural innovations and the settling of cities was established.
This is the ‘Ideology, Religion, Biology, Environment’ lecture or more like the ‘Relgion’ lecture since he only finished discussing religion after more than an hour. But it was very impressive.
So here’s why Europe developed faster than the rest of the world: Christianity is more friendly to capital accumulation and entreprenuership than all other religions except Confucianism.
Why did China develop slower despite Confucianism(and I think this is empirically indisputable): Institutional separation of Church and (monarchical) State. The king was scared of being excommunicated by the Church so he didn’t do much harm. Church is a good counterbalance to the kings power because it is funded voluntarily whereas king can collect rent occasionally. In China, the high Confucian elders are employed in the state.
Hoppe simplifies things by working from the perspective of a natural order. In a natural order, the brightest and most skilled become rich and, since there is no public education(subsidizing poor children leading to more poor children), the rich have more children. So this leads to a natural selection. I believe this is a valid statement.
Climate also matters. The fact that man survives in a harsh climate presupposes that he has developed methods or technologies to survive.
But the allegation that whites are simply more intelligent is I believe false. There are studies which clearly point out that Chinese > Whites > Blacks when it comes to intelligence. Although the same could not be characteristic of the world 500 years ago.
This is the ‘Ideology, Religion, Biology, Environment’ lecture or more like the ‘Relgion’ lecture since he only finished discussing religion after more than an hour. But it was very impressive.
So here’s why Europe developed faster than the rest of the world: Christianity is more friendly to capital accumulation and entreprenuership than all other religions except Confucianism.
Why did China develop slower despite Confucianism(and I think this is empirically indisputable): Institutional separation of Church and (monarchical) State. The king was scared of being excommunicated by the Church so he didn’t do much harm. Church is a good counterbalance to the kings power because it is funded voluntarily whereas king can collect rent occasionally. In China, the high Confucian elders are employed in the state.
Hoppe simplifies things by working from the perspective of a natural order. In a natural order, the brightest and most skilled become rich and, since there is no public education(subsidizing poor children leading to more poor children), the rich have more children. So this leads to a natural selection. I believe this is a valid statement.
Climate also matters. The fact that man survives in a harsh climate presupposes that he has developed methods or technologies to survive.
But the allegation that whites are simply more intelligent is I believe false. There are studies which clearly point out that Chinese > Whites > Blacks when it comes to intelligence. Although the same could not be characteristic of the world 500 years ago."
Why is it that there was separation of Church and State? Why was the religion more friendly to capital accumulation and entreprenuership? Why did Western Culture value innovation and individualism? Is it because of intelligence? I don’t know. It’s a bit of a stretch. This is where praxeology ends and empiricism begins.
100 is average for whites. Eskimos are around 90, african blacks 67(US & Euro blacks 80ish), aboriginals 62, middle eastern also 90ish
Hey nandnor.
Did you know that children of Italians and Eastern Europeans who immigrated to America did worse on IQ tests than black Americans? As in, the best scoring of the former still did worse than the worst of the latter?
IQ is genetic, but there are too many factors. Too many factors.
And most of all, be careful in interpreting statistics.
So all the smart folks moved away. Very clever. I don’t buy it, but it’s very clever.
But WHY was there downward mobility?
I’d say living conditions in certain parts of Africa were pretty harsh too, but IQ tests have shown that the people living in those areas have low IQ scores. Also, East Asians score higher on IQ tests (which do measure intelligence and intelligence is strongly correlated with genetic factors) than do Europeans. I wouldn’t say that the living conditions in Japan or Korea were significantly harsher than the living conditions in Northern Europe. Lastly, European Jews score the highest on IQ tests. Based on all of this, I’d say there are many more factors than the harshness of environment that determine intelligence.
Hey, I’ve just found a video that is more complete than the audio track :
Hoppe says that people are more intelligent in northern regions, and the industrial revolution happened in England rather than in Mesopotamia because… well, people who lived in mesopotamia were intelligent enough for an agricultural revolution, but not an industrial one…
He also says that property rights aren’t sufficient to have a good economy, you also need smart people to make it work. That would mean that African are in deep ship because even if there is a strong enforcement of private property and individual rights, it wouldn’t work.
And he says that in… Turkey !
Right, but would you seriously say that Africa has a pleasant environment? Certain areas of Africas are, without a doubt, harsher than Europe.
No I’ve already said that was dubious to say that living in “tropical region” is less harsher than living in northern region. And by the way, why no agricultural revolution happened in South Africa, Australia’s east coast, extreme-south America, north America ?
Hoppe says that people in some regions were intellectually able to have an agricultural revolution but they lacked a good environnement, mediteranean weather, flat soil, rivers etc.
I don’t really know what to think about it. As long as Hoppe wants individual and property rights and doesn’t say black people should be exterminated, that’s fine x)