China is not a developing civilization, its culture and civilization goes back far beyond that of any existing European civilization. The Germanic tribes were still nomadic tribes for a good thousand years when China had developed a writen language and had formed agricultural communities. The Chinese civilization would at the time of the Roman civilization would easily compare in size, scope and development. Unlike the Roman civilization the Chinese one from then still has a large influence on the Chinese civilization today. The begining of the Chinese civilization if I recall correctly would have been around the 800 BC period, before any real development in Europe outside of the Hellenic region
Side note and the likely reason for your misconception
China had the largest economy in the world and was probably the largest manufacturer the world of goods up untill sometime in the 1800s. China which tends to go through periods of self imposed isolation did not partake in the industrial revolution which put it behind the 8 ball when it comes to world power in the 1800-1900s for the most part. Now that China is in a more open phase it is taking the usefull ideas from the nonchinese world and is in the process of regaining its traditional place as one of the worlds powers. The Opium Wars was the UK pushing China to allow Opium imports as a means to balance the trade between the British Empire and China
Last edited by Lord Tammerlain; 09-15-11 at 06:27 PM.
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?
Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey look, some people find it wrong. Responding to something does not make you right and them wrong, or else I have just proven you wrong simply by responding. This is what we call elementary logic, which seems to be beyond you. Maybe you did not realize this, but just saying you are right does not make it so, and yet because the authors said they are right, you assume that means they are.The review article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" by Rushton and Jensen was published in 2005. The article was followed by a series of responses, some in support, some critical. Richard Nisbett, another psychologist who had also commented at the time, later included an amplified version of his critique as part of the book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (2009). Rushton and Jensen in 2010 made a point-for-point reply to this and again summarized the hereditarian position.
Then of course we have http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...2005-03637-002
Oh look, it turns out people actually do disagree with your source, people with knowledge in the field. I can happily dig up more, but despite your claims, the paper is in fact controversial, with many disagreeing with it. In fact, despite all your ad homs and attempts to hide the fact, you have only shown that in fact I am right, it is controversial. If you would take time to stop and think before you hit the submit reply button, you might not make these elementary mistakes(see, I can make mindless ad homs just like you too).
Actually, you showed him that you could not counter his post and had to resort to, once again, misdirection in an attempt to draw attention away from it. By the way, Tucker in fact does know more on the topic than you do, as we have seen numberous times. Hell, I know more on the topic than you, and I just casually read things.
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 295-301.
Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 302-310.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 311-319.
Suzuki, L., & Aronson, J. (2005). The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 320-327.
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R (2005). Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 328-336.
I already noted that this issue featured dissenters. Just because someone dissents doesn't mean that their dissent is valid. Go take an evening and read the entire debate and see how weak the criticisms are and how they are addressed by the last article.Oh look, it turns out people actually do disagree with your source, people with knowledge in the field.
Moderator's Warning: RiverDad, stop making things personal and attacking other users.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates