THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE DESERVES TO BE BEATEN AND STOMPED TO A PULP.

[Xangsane]

I don’t even benefit from that, no one wants their toucan beak nosed women when you already have pretty Europeans as the default

I've also seen hook nosed white women

 

[gribsufer1]

That's understandable. I hope they got punished harshly.

what? im saying if i was in a community of people of my ethnicity and ethnics came i would beat them up, also i didnt tell anyone

 

[Deleted member 21661]

I don’t even benefit from that, no one wants their toucan beak nosed women when you already have pretty Europeans as the default

The more white people an area has, the better looking the girls there are, in my experience.

 

[gribsufer1]

Mixing and interacting with each other, celebrating each other's differences.

yeah except this is happening

 

[Aypo129]

View attachment 2149039

you should know your sources well
This book is written by charles murray famous bunk book writer of the Bell curve

---

About the author​

Charles Murray​

Charles Alan Murray is an American libertarian conservative political scientist, author, and columnist. His book Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 (1984), which discussed the American welfare system, was widely read and discussed, and influenced subsequent government policy. He became well-known for his controversial book The Bell Curve (1994), written with Richard Herrnstein, in which he argues that intelligence is a better predictor than parental socio-economic status or education level of many individual outcomes including income, job performance, pregnancy out of wedlock, and crime, and that social welfare programs and education efforts to improve social outcomes for the disadvantaged are largely wasted.
Show more

---

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225468.Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
Richard J. Herrnstein





This book is Interesting in parts, but hardly original (anyone can produce a few glorified lists), although Murray clearly put in a lot of effort and he’s right that genius and exceptional achievement are rare and should be prized. Sadly plagued by a clear political and Eurocentric bias (discussed below), and dubious views on art and aesthetics.
the Eurocentrism: Murray relies exclusively on Western sources which aren’t going to be independent of one another to produce his lists of the most significant figures and events in the history of science (and its various fields). Certainly, he and they acknowledge some of ‘the works of the great Arabic scholar-scientists… of Indian mathematics… [and] of Chinese naturalists and astronomers’, but they also ignore a lot too. He claims that he was ‘unable to find evidence that inventories of scientific… accomplishment drawn from reputable sources in any non-Western culture would look much different from the inventories we will be working with’, but provides no description of how he came to this conclusion, so why should we believe him?

another problem: “As for the problem of bias against non-European contributions to the sciences, though he hasn’t used any encyclopedias published in the Far or Middle East or in the languages of those parts of the world, he has compensated by using the most authoritative reference work available, the 18-volume ”Dictionary of Scientific Biography,” which ‘includes experts in Arabic, Indian and East Asian science drawn from universities around the world.'”

Further, she notes, “His claim is simply that if some non-Western discovery or achievement isn’t included in his sources, then we don’t have to worry about it. Moreover, he excludes from his book any work of art or invention not attributed to a single individual, thereby helping to ensure that the cultures that most privilege autonomy and individualism — that is to say, Western cultures — would rise to the top of his lists. (This method probably also underestimates the strength of contemporary scientific achievements, often the result of teamwork — which may help explain Murrray’s theory of decline.)”

William R. Thomas writing for The Atlas Society also noted “For someone at pains to avoid the appearance of bias, Murray appears to have done little to access non-Western sources. For example, the sources for the Western literature inventory include three U.S. sources, one Italian, one Brazilian, one Spanish, and three German. Where are Russian or Polish scholars, the Japanese—or the French, for that matter? There should be thorough surveys of Western literature available from at least some of these countries. Murray’s sources in effect appear to heavily reflect U.S. and German views, and he isn’t in a position to test thoroughly for consistency given the limits of this pool of sources.”

Thomas further states, “Murray relies almost entirely on materials in Roman-alphabet languages, leaving translations as his only means—with a few exceptions—of using non-Western histories and compendia. The exceptions are in Japanese, where, with the help of a Japanese graduate student, Murray was able to include some arts sources.”

Worse, Thomas notes that some English sources were ignored. “It also happens that there is in English a well-regarded compendium of Chinese science and technology. However, Murray claims that this work could not be included among his sources without admitting compendia focused on individual European countries such as Germany (doing this would inflate the German numbers at least as much as the Chinese).” These are, Thomas feels especially problematic because while “Murray is right to insist on uniform standards of measurement across sources. But the lack of attention to non-Western sources is a serious shortcoming for a book that makes universal claims about human history.”

This book doesn’t exclusively vindicate white supremacy. Jews were not in Europe or in the U.S. considered white or at least white enough. And this book includes, “much space to the disproportionately high rates of exceptional achievement among modern Jews as he does to the disproportionately low rates among women and non-Westerners, rates that appear to
persist even into the present.” That means the statistics do not only reflect the achievements of whites, but also of Jews.

The tactic of excluding Chinese sources also all means Murray excluded research about the people who wrote the first encyclopedias and the Chinese make up one-fifth of the world population. He also excluded other resources from Asia which is about 60 percent of the world population. That’s a considerable number of people and that means doesn’t even try to be thorough on the histories of African nations


He also says that the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies, corresponds to his findings. But regardless of whether its editorial staff includes experts from ‘universities around the world’, they are still likely to be heavily influenced by Eurocentric biases because of the texts they are likely to have read. Ultimately, Murray says ‘it is incumbent on those who continue to allege Eurocentrism to specify the names and contributions of important… scientists and mathematicians who have been left out’. He also, ironically, says that the new events and figures must be, or have been responsible for, “firsts”. As he says elsewhere, ‘the act of discovery – being first – is the requisite for getting into an inventory’.

Well, here are just a few examples for Murray, some of which demonstrate that the Western individuals he includes in his lists should be replaced or joined by non-Westerners who got there earlier or who mirrored their accomplishments:

Firstly, Fibonacci is not only included in Murray’s scientific or mathematical inventories, he’s even in his list of the ‘top 20’ figures in mathematics. Yet, one of his main accomplishments – the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic arithmetical system to Europe – was entirely derivative. The other – the “Fibonacci” sequence – had been known about in India for more than a thousand years, first described by the grammarian and mathematician Pingala (who fails to make the list) in the 3rd Century BCE.

Similarly, it’s debatable whether Pythagoras made any original contributions to mathematics but he is still included in the roster – the “Pythagorean” theorem and “Pythagorean” triples were described in the Indian ‘Sulba Sutras’ (along with geometric proofs) before Pythagoras, and may well have influenced him or his school.

Secondly, Galen and Hippocrates are included in the list of the ‘top 20’ figures in medicine, despite Murray himself acknowledging that most of their medical pronouncements were completely false. At the very least, then, the ancient Indian surgeon Sushruta, sometimes labelled the ‘father of surgery’, should join them in the top 20 despite holding some incorrect views about medicine. He was likely the first to perform cataract surgery and plastic surgery, to describe leprosy, and to remove bladder stones by lateral lithotomy. The Greeks and the Chinese travelled to India to see these surgeries performed, and the Arabs later transmitted some of this knowledge to Europe, where it was drawn upon in Italy in particular.

Thirdly, there are others who may not belong in the top 20, but certainly belong in the inventories ahead of the very minor Western figures that populate some of the lists. While the great Persian physician and polymath Al-Razi comfortably makes the inventory, Al-Zahrawi, arguably the greatest surgeon of the Middle Ages, does not, despite pioneering the use of a number of surgical instruments and techniques and making a number of important medical discoveries, including the provision of the earliest known description of hemophilia and its hereditary nature. Meanwhile Westerners like Edris Rice-Wray are included for conducting run-of-the-mill randomised control trials of medical treatments already discovered by others.

Fourth, while al-Khwarizmi, Omar Khayyam, al-Battani and other Islamic mathematicians are included in Murray’s mathematical inventory (and should be in the top 20 in the case of al-Khwarizmi), pioneers like the Persian mathematicians al-Tusi (the founder of trigonometry as a discipline in its own right, and who likely influenced Copernicus’s development of the Heliocentric model) and al-Kashi (who discovered the cosine rule) are not.

And while Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara II are included in the lists (and should be higher up), other classical and mediaeval Indian mathematicians like Madhava (who came close to discovering calculus and was the first to develop infinite series approximations for the trigonometric functions and pi) are not. Meanwhile, Westerners like Adelard of Bath make the mathematical inventory, despite Adelard’s only major contribution to mathematics being to (re-)transmit Greek, Indian and Islamic mathematics into Europe.

Indeed, throughout the book, there is a Eurocentric bias in the examples Murray chooses (especially when listing his ‘significant’ events in various fields, which ignore groundbreaking non-Western contributions in astronomy, mathematics and medicine, some of which are discussed above) and the case studies he discusses.

Finally, his views on art and aesthetics are dubious: he claims that the fact that the views of experts in wine tasting or music will broadly converge has significance. On the contrary, their views are not independent of each other at all, because their judgments are very often based on the same frameworks and principles (pertaining to how a ‘good’ piece of music sounds or is constructed, for instance) that they inherited or learned from their predecessors.

TLDR:- Not a good source

 

[Prettyboy]

its all economics their being imported for cheap labor don't blame the ethnics blame the elites importing them to line their pockets

they could just as easily invite poor Eastern Europeans with much closer cultural proxomity instead of brown people.

Just like how immigration to the US pre 1965 was almost all Europeans and it really shows if you put it next to the current state of affairs

If you invite the third world you will too become the third world

The more white people an area has, the better looking the girls there are, in my experience.

Ethnics are incredibly ugly. Average is 3 psl in areas where they are

 

[gribsufer1]

they could just as easily invite poor Eastern Europeans with much closer cultural proxomity instead of brown people.

Just like how immigration to the US pre 1965 was almost all Europeans and it really shows if you put it next to the current state of affairs

Ethnics except arabs are incredibly ugly. Average is 3 psl in areas where they are

 

[Deleted member 21661]

they could just as easily invite poor Eastern Europeans with much closer cultural proxomity instead of brown people.

Just like how immigration to the US pre 1965 was almost all Europeans and it really shows if you put it next to the current state of affairs

If you invite the third world you will too become the third world

To be fair, the people living here are mostly blacks, whose population hasn't grown in a long time. The immigrants that commit the most crime are illegal mexicans, who just come here illegally. But so many leftists want to open the borders and let them stay jfl. So cucked.

 

[Deleted member 18544]

you should know your sources well
This book is written by charles murray famous bunk book writer of the Bell curve

---

About the author​

Charles Murray​

Charles Alan Murray is an American libertarian conservative political scientist, author, and columnist. His book Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 (1984), which discussed the American welfare system, was widely read and discussed, and influenced subsequent government policy. He became well-known for his controversial book The Bell Curve (1994), written with Richard Herrnstein, in which he argues that intelligence is a better predictor than parental socio-economic status or education level of many individual outcomes including income, job performance, pregnancy out of wedlock, and crime, and that social welfare programs and education efforts to improve social outcomes for the disadvantaged are largely wasted.
Show more

---

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225468.Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
Richard J. Herrnstein





This book is Interesting in parts, but hardly original (anyone can produce a few glorified lists), although Murray clearly put in a lot of effort and he’s right that genius and exceptional achievement are rare and should be prized. Sadly plagued by a clear political and Eurocentric bias (discussed below), and dubious views on art and aesthetics.
the Eurocentrism: Murray relies exclusively on Western sources which aren’t going to be independent of one another to produce his lists of the most significant figures and events in the history of science (and its various fields). Certainly, he and they acknowledge some of ‘the works of the great Arabic scholar-scientists… of Indian mathematics… [and] of Chinese naturalists and astronomers’, but they also ignore a lot too. He claims that he was ‘unable to find evidence that inventories of scientific… accomplishment drawn from reputable sources in any non-Western culture would look much different from the inventories we will be working with’, but provides no description of how he came to this conclusion, so why should we believe him?

another problem: “As for the problem of bias against non-European contributions to the sciences, though he hasn’t used any encyclopedias published in the Far or Middle East or in the languages of those parts of the world, he has compensated by using the most authoritative reference work available, the 18-volume ”Dictionary of Scientific Biography,” which ‘includes experts in Arabic, Indian and East Asian science drawn from universities around the world.'”

Further, she notes, “His claim is simply that if some non-Western discovery or achievement isn’t included in his sources, then we don’t have to worry about it. Moreover, he excludes from his book any work of art or invention not attributed to a single individual, thereby helping to ensure that the cultures that most privilege autonomy and individualism — that is to say, Western cultures — would rise to the top of his lists. (This method probably also underestimates the strength of contemporary scientific achievements, often the result of teamwork — which may help explain Murrray’s theory of decline.)”

William R. Thomas writing for The Atlas Society also noted “For someone at pains to avoid the appearance of bias, Murray appears to have done little to access non-Western sources. For example, the sources for the Western literature inventory include three U.S. sources, one Italian, one Brazilian, one Spanish, and three German. Where are Russian or Polish scholars, the Japanese—or the French, for that matter? There should be thorough surveys of Western literature available from at least some of these countries. Murray’s sources in effect appear to heavily reflect U.S. and German views, and he isn’t in a position to test thoroughly for consistency given the limits of this pool of sources.”

Thomas further states, “Murray relies almost entirely on materials in Roman-alphabet languages, leaving translations as his only means—with a few exceptions—of using non-Western histories and compendia. The exceptions are in Japanese, where, with the help of a Japanese graduate student, Murray was able to include some arts sources.”

Worse, Thomas notes that some English sources were ignored. “It also happens that there is in English a well-regarded compendium of Chinese science and technology. However, Murray claims that this work could not be included among his sources without admitting compendia focused on individual European countries such as Germany (doing this would inflate the German numbers at least as much as the Chinese).” These are, Thomas feels especially problematic because while “Murray is right to insist on uniform standards of measurement across sources. But the lack of attention to non-Western sources is a serious shortcoming for a book that makes universal claims about human history.”

This book doesn’t exclusively vindicate white supremacy. Jews were not in Europe or in the U.S. considered white or at least white enough. And this book includes, “much space to the disproportionately high rates of exceptional achievement among modern Jews as he does to the disproportionately low rates among women and non-Westerners, rates that appear to
persist even into the present.” That means the statistics do not only reflect the achievements of whites, but also of Jews.

The tactic of excluding Chinese sources also all means Murray excluded research about the people who wrote the first encyclopedias and the Chinese make up one-fifth of the world population. He also excluded other resources from Asia which is about 60 percent of the world population. That’s a considerable number of people and that means doesn’t even try to be thorough on the histories of African nations


He also says that the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies, corresponds to his findings. But regardless of whether its editorial staff includes experts from ‘universities around the world’, they are still likely to be heavily influenced by Eurocentric biases because of the texts they are likely to have read. Ultimately, Murray says ‘it is incumbent on those who continue to allege Eurocentrism to specify the names and contributions of important… scientists and mathematicians who have been left out’. He also, ironically, says that the new events and figures must be, or have been responsible for, “firsts”. As he says elsewhere, ‘the act of discovery – being first – is the requisite for getting into an inventory’.

Well, here are just a few examples for Murray, some of which demonstrate that the Western individuals he includes in his lists should be replaced or joined by non-Westerners who got there earlier or who mirrored their accomplishments:

Firstly, Fibonacci is not only included in Murray’s scientific or mathematical inventories, he’s even in his list of the ‘top 20’ figures in mathematics. Yet, one of his main accomplishments – the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic arithmetical system to Europe – was entirely derivative. The other – the “Fibonacci” sequence – had been known about in India for more than a thousand years, first described by the grammarian and mathematician Pingala (who fails to make the list) in the 3rd Century BCE.

Similarly, it’s debatable whether Pythagoras made any original contributions to mathematics but he is still included in the roster – the “Pythagorean” theorem and “Pythagorean” triples were described in the Indian ‘Sulba Sutras’ (along with geometric proofs) before Pythagoras, and may well have influenced him or his school.

Secondly, Galen and Hippocrates are included in the list of the ‘top 20’ figures in medicine, despite Murray himself acknowledging that most of their medical pronouncements were completely false. At the very least, then, the ancient Indian surgeon Sushruta, sometimes labelled the ‘father of surgery’, should join them in the top 20 despite holding some incorrect views about medicine. He was likely the first to perform cataract surgery and plastic surgery, to describe leprosy, and to remove bladder stones by lateral lithotomy. The Greeks and the Chinese travelled to India to see these surgeries performed, and the Arabs later transmitted some of this knowledge to Europe, where it was drawn upon in Italy in particular.

Thirdly, there are others who may not belong in the top 20, but certainly belong in the inventories ahead of the very minor Western figures that populate some of the lists. While the great Persian physician and polymath Al-Razi comfortably makes the inventory, Al-Zahrawi, arguably the greatest surgeon of the Middle Ages, does not, despite pioneering the use of a number of surgical instruments and techniques and making a number of important medical discoveries, including the provision of the earliest known description of hemophilia and its hereditary nature. Meanwhile Westerners like Edris Rice-Wray are included for conducting run-of-the-mill randomised control trials of medical treatments already discovered by others.

Fourth, while al-Khwarizmi, Omar Khayyam, al-Battani and other Islamic mathematicians are included in Murray’s mathematical inventory (and should be in the top 20 in the case of al-Khwarizmi), pioneers like the Persian mathematicians al-Tusi (the founder of trigonometry as a discipline in its own right, and who likely influenced Copernicus’s development of the Heliocentric model) and al-Kashi (who discovered the cosine rule) are not.

And while Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara II are included in the lists (and should be higher up), other classical and mediaeval Indian mathematicians like Madhava (who came close to discovering calculus and was the first to develop infinite series approximations for the trigonometric functions and pi) are not. Meanwhile, Westerners like Adelard of Bath make the mathematical inventory, despite Adelard’s only major contribution to mathematics being to (re-)transmit Greek, Indian and Islamic mathematics into Europe.

Indeed, throughout the book, there is a Eurocentric bias in the examples Murray chooses (especially when listing his ‘significant’ events in various fields, which ignore groundbreaking non-Western contributions in astronomy, mathematics and medicine, some of which are discussed above) and the case studies he discusses.

Finally, his views on art and aesthetics are dubious: he claims that the fact that the views of experts in wine tasting or music will broadly converge has significance. On the contrary, their views are not independent of each other at all, because their judgments are very often based on the same frameworks and principles (pertaining to how a ‘good’ piece of music sounds or is constructed, for instance) that they inherited or learned from their predecessors.

TLDR:- Not a good source

ill read that some other time

 

[Aypo129]

ill read that some other time

I read his book The Bell Curve before like in 2019 and it took me 2-3 weeks to deconstruct it since it was 1000 pages long
You can never trust these people always remain cautionery