 |
| |
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
NO, the hardware is the soci-economic condtions the people live in.
The Sioux are a great example of how in my view economics trumps culture, or in fact creates culture. Everyone thinks of the Sioux today as horse warriors, and yet anyone who thinks about it for a second will realize that the decendents of the Sioux must have been small scale farmers and gatherers for millenia before. Then they get access to this new beast, and in some short centuries their culture changes completely to become that of horsemen. And not only the Sioux but most plains Indians all of a sudden change their cultures because this possible change in economics occured.
Our culture today is very different from that of our predecessors, and what actually changed? The socio-economic situation.
Socio-economic conditions drive culture, not the other way around. And geography is vitally important for the type of economic conditions that can arise. |
Hmm, go back far enough and you find their ancestors ate the horses for food, thus wiping them out.
The horses on the steppes of Russia were small too, originally, hence the need for carts and later chariots. The difference being that one group saw them as food, the other as potential. The horses were bred larger and larger so that by the time of the Romans, they are no longer used for pulling chariots in battle, but are rather ridden as calvary.
The indians saw someone else use them as transportation and did recognize their utility at that point. But before that, they saw them as food. Big difference.
So, you're wrong again. I cannot think of the people on the steppes, those that tamed the horse and invented the cart and chariot, were any better off then the Amerindians. Your argument fails again.
It's no different then Europeans utilizing dogs to aid them in their hunting, while in Asia and the Americas, they were utilized for food. Dogs were used for hunting long before guns made their appearance. It was the Romans introduced the Spaniel to England. The Afghan hound has been used in the Caucasus for hunting for perhaps 5,000 years- as has the Saluki in the Middle East. Both breeds came into being at roughly the same time period, though people do argue over which came first. In any case, they are considered the oldest breeds on the planet, and they are hunting dogs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Epublius Rex
Now, my score of 1540 in 1977, per links provided, equated with an IQ of 158. Your HS's test score equates with nothing. As no one any longer believes it to be an indication of anything other then the ability to fill in blank circles. |
I'm well aware of the 2003 study about correlation between SAT scores and IQ, and the formula is utter crap:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002360.html
quote:
NOw, as to your assertion of my being had by the kid, based upon that alone, I consider you to be substandard. |
The kid has you beat. He scored perfect on both his math and verbal components. You didn't. You never did answer him on this point. You fled the scene.
Of course, we actually have proof of Jaguar's scores in the manner of a scanned record. All we have from you are claims and bluster. Given your posts, I would say your 1540 score was probably exaggerated a wee bit. 
quote:
Everything I have listed above is verified by facts contained in the links. You weren't smart enough to either follow or understand them, either way, it says more about you then it does me. |
Now you're just making **** up. You provided 2 links in that thread, neither of which addressed most of what you wrote above. The second one wasn't even critical of the SAT - it was noting the decline in overall average scores in the U.S.
These links were about as germaine to your assertions as the links you provided that Laz and Provost H pointed out were utter crap. You seem to just link to things without actually reading what they say. Hey, that would explain why you had no idea one of your own linked articles in this thread was a Wikipedia entry! 
quote:
The ultimate humiliation is to be so ignorant as to not know when you have humiliated yourself, as you have just done. |
Since you don't see how much you've humiliated yourself in the other board cited, I find the unintended irony of this statement hilarious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
No, what I attacked, oh yee of small brain and limited perception, was the post that someone made stating that the world would be better off without whites- a real racist statement. Nothing I linked to was refuted and not one of you could explain how it wasn't racist. Instead, the likes of you and Gepap did what you always do when losing- started calling names without basis- like children in a school yard.
I had stumbled into here on a google search for the game "Civilization" and started scanning the posts since the actual topic did not show when clicked from google.
I was stunned by such hatred on the part of "the gimp". Just stunned. I expect such diatribes from angry minorities with an axe to grind, but not from people who consider themselves educated and or intelligent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm well aware of the 2003 study about correlation between SAT scores and IQ, and the formula is utter crap:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002360.html
The kid has you beat. He scored perfect on both his math and verbal components. You didn't. You never did answer him on this point. You fled the scene.
Of course, we actually have proof of Jaguar's scores in the manner of a scanned record. All we have from you are claims and bluster. Given your posts, I would say your 1540 score was probably exaggerated a wee bit.
Now you're just making **** up. You provided 2 links in that thread, neither of which addressed most of what you wrote above. The second one wasn't even critical of the SAT - it was noting the decline in overall average scores in the U.S.
These links were about as germaine to your assertions as the links you provided that Laz and Provost H pointed out were utter crap. You seem to just link to things without actually reading what they say. Hey, that would explain why you had no idea one of your own linked articles in this thread was a Wikipedia entry!
Since you don't see how much you've humiliated yourself in the other board cited, I find the unintended irony of this statement hilarious. |
You can't read, can you? THe kid had three hours, numerous attempts and practice tests as well as a calculator. One of those links made it clear that Mensa no longer accepts SAT scores for entry. They haven't for nearly ten years- why do you suppose that is? After 1990 it was possible to score more then 1600 on a test with 1600 points!
I posted much more then two.
http://www.nationalreview.com/contr...rtz032502.shtml
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/GREIQ.html
note that in the link above, the new SAT isn't listed- and it won't be anytime soon.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000830.html
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/en...a/s/sa/sat2.htm
You obviously do not understand what renorming is- neither did your buddies. When they renorm the test, they define it downward. This became necessary in the 1980's as test scores continued to fall, based upon the pre 1980 norm. In other words, a score of say 1000 after the first renorming (1980 or thereabouts) was = to an 800 or so before 1980. Put another way, a score of 1000 in 1975 after renorming was worth 1200, or so.
Renorming means to re-average the test- it was done to hide the fact that the test scores kept falling. maybe this is simple enough- your in a class, and no one scores above 90, so no one gets an A. The next semester, the new score needed to get an A is 80. Now the averages have been lowered, the class dumbed down.
Ergo, my score of a 1540 is not only excellent, it's better, or at least Mensa thinks so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
Let's stick to the topic of the thread, if you can't keep up Boris, then bow out and go away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:33
|
|
quote:
China was ruled by the crazy witch for most of the 19th century? |
No, but she ruled during the Self-Strengthening Movement, which was China's most notable attempt to modernize in order to combat the Western powers. She played no small role in its ultimate failure.
quote:
And Meiji stopped being a figurehead, after having beaten the reactionaries into submission |
Nah, he was always a figurehead controlled by the leaders of Choshu and Satsuma who launched the Meiji Restoration.
Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 21-07-2005 at 06:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The Americans came in 1854, with no intentions of colonizing. The Meiji restoration began in 1867.
So, why weren't the Europeans all over Japan in those 13 years? Even if the restoration began in 1867, there is little Japan could have done against European powers until probably the mid 1870's.
Japan was given the chance to use the time to modernize and develop. China was not. |
The AMericans came with gunboats and the implicit threat that if japan didn't open up, they would force it to open up. The European powers backed away from Japan because America made it clear they wanted it. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the European powers were justifiably wary of engaging America in a war. IN 1865, we had the largest standing army in the world and world's largest and most advance navy. And an economic engine that was still fully geared to war production.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What the hell are you talking about? The Europeans powers didn't colonize China either, outside tiny enclaves like Macau and Hong Kong. They were interested in trade, not land, and forced China to trade on their terms via gunboat diplomacy and unequal treaties. Funnily enough, that's exactly what they did to Japan after Perry and his black ships opened it... |
Don't forget Shanghai! They had a teeny tiny enclave there as well.
They never really colonized India, either, or the Middle East. usually all they wanted was to trade. And the right to trade with exclusive agreements- which meant that they traded with one European power only.
That's another problem with GGS, is that he forgets the amount of carnage the Europeans exacted on themselves, fighting for the right to those exclusive trade agreements. My bet is that they killed far more of each other then they did the non-Euros.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
China could have modernized. But even despite the humiliations of the opium wars, the Chinese rulers didn't make the drastic choice Meiji did. There were quite a few reformers in China, and quite a few reactionaries (the same forces were found in Japan). The Chiinese emperor didn't stand for modernization, while the Japanese one did.
And it made a world of difference, for one century. |
Its easy to say. Its different to defend that notion.
The Qing Dynasty faced many large scale rebellions in the 19th century after the Opium wars, whcih sagged its strength.
Also, the Foreign Qing Dynasty was supported by the Chinese landed gentry, a relatively conservative force. So, here are the Chinese, with foreigners in control of mayor ports, large insurrections and rebellions, and the ruling clique is propped up in power by conservative landed gentry, the people who helped the Qing dynasty survive the many rebellions against in in the first place.
Japan on the other had is ruled by a strong central government that had already put the local gentry in its place, and was able to crush them when they opposed reforms.
I fail to see how under those conditions China could have simply "modernized".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Now you're surprising me. Please tell me more about it. The very idea that Meiji was a mere figurehead is completely alien to me. |
I'm not answering for him. My understanding is that he was ruled from the competing factions of Samurai warlords. The one's who won were those in favor of modernizing and allying with the US. The ones that lost were in favor of isolationism. Those who controlled the Emperor controlled the fate of the nation. He was very young and at the mercy of men his father's age. Those men could have easily assassinated him.
Really, the same thing went on in China as well. The Royal families in both countries locked themselves up in the secure enclaves and never came out, they never interacted with their people. They relied on their advisors for everything. Big mistake.
My grandfather opened an office in Japan in 1925. He brought back some neat stuff from Japan then and later after WW2. The stuff from WW2 is all stamped "occupied Japan" the earlier things, if they have anything other then artists signature have "Nippon" on them. Better grade items pre war then after it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Its easy to say. Its different to defend that notion.
The Qing Dynasty faced many large scale rebellions in the 19th century after the Opium wars, whcih sagged its strength.
Also, the Foreign Qing Dynasty was supported by the Chinese landed gentry, a relatively conservative force. So, here are the Chinese, with foreigners in control of mayor ports, large insurrections and rebellions, and the ruling clique is propped up in power by conservative landed gentry, the people who helped the Qing dynasty survive the many rebellions against in in the first place.
Japan on the other had is ruled by a strong central government that had already put the local gentry in its place, and was able to crush them when they opposed reforms.
I fail to see how under those conditions China could have simply "modernized". |
Ask Mao, he did it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
Don't forget that the Emperors of both countries (Japan, China) were considered to be Gods and may have actually believed it- there is evidence to that effect.
WOuld that color one's perspective? sure it would. Gods are infallible. It must have been quite a shock to have those barbarians show up and start dictating policy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epublius Rex
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Lets give a wonderful European example: Poland.
Poland in 1690 was a great European power.
Poland in 1790 was on the verge of completely disappearing.
NOw, was Polish culture less open to advancement than say, Prussian, Austrian, or Russian cultures? (the cultures of the three states that carved Poland up).
Most Poles would throw a fit if you claimed that Polish culture was less "western" than Russian culture. So how come Russia beat out Poland?
Maybe it was because the Czars created a strong centralized state while the Polish kings had to deal with a landed gentry hell-bent on keeping their powers and thus making Sure a strong centralized power did not take over Poland, thus dooming the Polish kingdom to rule from Berlin or Vienna or Moscow? |
Not a fair example and not because it's Poland and European. Poland was a land locked nation surrounded on all sides by hostile powers. While Prussia was also surrounded, it was not landlocked and it had long since freed it's serfs and instituted public school education. Prussia also had the tacit backing of the German principalities in it's rear. so while it did have to fend off Russia- who was on the verge of crushing it when the Czar died, it usually did not have to fight everyone it bordered on. Though they were all merciless with it- including Poland. Poland had no dynamic kings such as Frederick, nor a history as of militarism. Lastly, I don't think the Poles liked their nobility very much- they almost always felt sold out by them. Thus, they would not have been too keen to die for them. Most were better off as subjects of Prussia. You have to consider these things.
Prussia also had a strong landed class of gentry, but their kings were able to maintain their loyalty to the state and they were willing to die for that state. They had a greater sense of national community for a variety of reasons. One of the most important was their sense of national history and heritage. Plus, the Hohenzollerns never imported a foreign people to manage them the way the Polish royalty had.
Russia had no one on it's borders once it had dealt with the Mongols. There never was any real pressure on it from the Ottomans or the Caliphate before them- no one wanted Russia. Besides, Russia was founded by the Rus ,a foreign people who ruled the indigenous people with an iron fist- thus they felt no "brotherly" connection to the masses, their loyalty lay to one another first and foremost.
Culture does make a difference.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2005 05:27
|