Sidster - Where do I even begin? My first reaction, well, really my fourth or fifth, because the first few would not add to the substance of this debate was I haven't come across so much flawed reasoning in a long time. I am honestly disturbed to see that you actually believe the stuff you have written. In my opinion, such view points have no place in the information age because they reflect complete ignorance about what makes societies rich and poor (and thus create the illusion of 'smart' and 'dumb' people or races ) This is too vast a subject to be dealt with end-to-end on a forum like Sajha and so I will focus on what I think is the core substance of this argument. The very premises of your argument seems to be whites have a genetic predisposition to superior intelligence. In all of the seven questions asked there is the the underlying presumption that success, as defined and measured by a debatable criteria, is somehow related to in-born intelligence of a race or ethnicity. Faraday being caucasian had nothing to do with his discovery/invention of modern electric technology. Anyone who grew up with the opportunities Faraday got is as likely to have done the same. Unfortunately, such opportunities did not exist outside of the Western world 200 years ago.(If you want to know why read the next paragraph). Hence the lopsided advantage of the West in science and engineering over the last few centuries. That has changed today. The inventors of the future are as likely to be located in Bangkok or Beijing as Boston or Brussels. And by definition, they will be inventing new things, and new technologies of the future. Should we then extend the logic and consider "yellow" people to be more superior in about 20 years? Why a country or civilization (or even a race for that matter) is better of and more powerful than the other has more to do with their use of technology, weaponry and geographic happenstance, to borrow the idea from Jared Diamond. Gun powder was invented in China but was weaponized on a large scale by the West. So by your argument isn't the inventor of gunpowder (from a "yellow" race) superior to the inventor of the gun? Mining iron and other metals to make tools was supposedly invented in the Middle East but cars were made out of them only in the West. It must have been a revolutionary idea at that time to use something extracted from the soil to dig fields and build armies. If you think the invention of the zero, as someone pointed out earlier, is not "outside the circle", you are plain wrong. It is one of the most radical ideas both in it's times and today. It is as critical, if not more, than other discoveries and inventions listed here. So does that, by extension, make the "brown man" a bit more superior? I could go on, but the sheer absurdity of it all leaves me to think you are using simplistic observations and analysis to draw complex conclusions. That, in my opinion, is indicative of a very shallow understanding of why things work the way they do.