Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

IQ and Social Policy

Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:17:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Oh shut up. Who are you to ask someone else to expound upon anything when you cower and hide in your racist ways. When you accept a legitimate debate on one your views with a LEGITIMATE member of this site, then I shall get off your back. Until then, you need to shut up.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...
President of DDO
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:24:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

Yea, I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, but I'm thinking about reading it sometime. The book comes under the conclusion that racial IQ differences are mostly due to genetic factors over any other factor correct?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:17:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Oh shut up. Who are you to ask someone else to expound upon anything when you cower and hide in your racist ways. When you accept a legitimate debate on one your views with a LEGITIMATE member of this site, then I shall get off your back. Until then, you need to shut up.

Nazi vs. Nazi. :p
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:28:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:17:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Oh shut up. Who are you to ask someone else to expound upon anything when you cower and hide in your racist ways. When you accept a legitimate debate on one your views with a LEGITIMATE member of this site, then I shall get off your back. Until then, you need to shut up.

I normally would respond to this, but since you are addressing me in a foul manner, I won't. Such statements such as "Oh shut up.", are very rude and unprofessional statements to make. Sorry, I will only address you if you say statements that aren't specifically offending me.

I know what your going to say..."Joseph_Mengele, you insult practically every single minority and jew with your views." Now, while that may be true, I never specifically attack any one person unless if it is a popular figure such as Barack Obama for example.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:24:59 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

Yea, I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, but I'm thinking about reading it sometime. The book comes under the conclusion that racial IQ differences are mostly due to genetic factors over any other factor correct?

Thats what I thought before I read it, but I was sort of wrong...

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:30:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:26:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:17:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Oh shut up. Who are you to ask someone else to expound upon anything when you cower and hide in your racist ways. When you accept a legitimate debate on one your views with a LEGITIMATE member of this site, then I shall get off your back. Until then, you need to shut up.

Nazi vs. Nazi. :p

I'm very offended by that. Please explain.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:31:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:24:59 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

Yea, I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, but I'm thinking about reading it sometime. The book comes under the conclusion that racial IQ differences are mostly due to genetic factors over any other factor correct?

Thats what I thought before I read it, but I was sort of wrong...

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else


They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Yea, one of the interesting things I find about "Political Correctness", is that we assume political correctness is automatically the way to be "correct". But whenever it comes to certain racial issues, that simply isn't the case.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:31:00 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:24:59 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

Yea, I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, but I'm thinking about reading it sometime. The book comes under the conclusion that racial IQ differences are mostly due to genetic factors over any other factor correct?

Thats what I thought before I read it, but I was sort of wrong...

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else


They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Yea, one of the interesting things I find about "Political Correctness", is that we assume political correctness is automatically the way to be "correct". But whenever it comes to certain racial issues, that simply isn't the case.

Very True

The best part of this is that the same people who call Creationists idiots don't believe in science when it comes to biodiversity...

Basically, it is like saying that anyone who disagrees with evolution is stupid... Unless, evolution leads to politicall incorrect conclusions...
President of DDO
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:36:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:34:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:31:00 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:24:59 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

Yea, I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, but I'm thinking about reading it sometime. The book comes under the conclusion that racial IQ differences are mostly due to genetic factors over any other factor correct?

Thats what I thought before I read it, but I was sort of wrong...

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else


They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Yea, one of the interesting things I find about "Political Correctness", is that we assume political correctness is automatically the way to be "correct". But whenever it comes to certain racial issues, that simply isn't the case.

Very True


The best part of this is that the same people who call Creationists idiots don't believe in science when it comes to biodiversity...

Basically, it is like saying that anyone who disagrees with evolution is stupid... Unless, evolution leads to politicall incorrect conclusions...

Well...I'm not religious, but I understand what your saying.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:39:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:36:18 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:34:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:31:00 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:24:59 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:21:05 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Sorry,

I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

Yea, I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, but I'm thinking about reading it sometime. The book comes under the conclusion that racial IQ differences are mostly due to genetic factors over any other factor correct?

Thats what I thought before I read it, but I was sort of wrong...

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else


They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Yea, one of the interesting things I find about "Political Correctness", is that we assume political correctness is automatically the way to be "correct". But whenever it comes to certain racial issues, that simply isn't the case.

Very True


The best part of this is that the same people who call Creationists idiots don't believe in science when it comes to biodiversity...

Basically, it is like saying that anyone who disagrees with evolution is stupid... Unless, evolution leads to politicall incorrect conclusions...

Well...I'm not religious, but I understand what your saying.

My point is that a lot of people say they believe in evolution, but refuse to believe some of the inevitable conclusions... including genetic differences between races...

I, and I assume you as well, believe in evolution and accept its conclusions...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:40:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:30:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:26:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:17:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Oh shut up. Who are you to ask someone else to expound upon anything when you cower and hide in your racist ways. When you accept a legitimate debate on one your views with a LEGITIMATE member of this site, then I shall get off your back. Until then, you need to shut up.

Nazi vs. Nazi. :p

I'm very offended by that. Please explain.

Authoritarian douches are called nazis. Joseph Mengle is a neo-nazi. Hence nazi vs. nazi.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:43:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:40:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I'm very offended by that. Please explain.

Authoritarian douches are called nazis. Joseph Mengle is a neo-nazi. Hence nazi vs. nazi.

I disagree at the accusation of being authoritarian, but even if I was, that doesn't make me a nazi. Thats a word that you'd rather do without because its extremely insulting and extremely wrong, especially seeing as you used it falsely.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:47:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:43:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:40:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I'm very offended by that. Please explain.

Authoritarian douches are called nazis. Joseph Mengle is a neo-nazi. Hence nazi vs. nazi.

I disagree at the accusation of being authoritarian, but even if I was, that doesn't make me a nazi. Thats a word that you'd rather do without because its extremely insulting and extremely wrong, especially seeing as you used it falsely.

Sorry, Nazi, I didn't realize I had to use words based on their literal definitions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:49:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:47:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:43:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:40:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:

I'm very offended by that. Please explain.

Authoritarian douches are called nazis. Joseph Mengle is a neo-nazi. Hence nazi vs. nazi.

I disagree at the accusation of being authoritarian, but even if I was, that doesn't make me a nazi. Thats a word that you'd rather do without because its extremely insulting and extremely wrong, especially seeing as you used it falsely.

Sorry, Nazi, I didn't realize I had to use words based on their literal definitions.

You're an @$$hole.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 2:20:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

I haven't read it, but have heard of it and read a little about it.

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

That's a completely meaningless statement until you have defined intelligence.

There are many kinds of intelligence. I wouldn't have thought most IQ tests would be an accurate assessment of spatial awareness for example.

If you want to say it's a good measure of intelligence as defined by people who make IQ tests, you would of course be accurate, but otherwise you'll have to define what you mean.

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

Yes it certainly is, but environment is at least as significant a factor too.

As well as the many physiological conditions, toxins and physical impacts that can affect brain function, the way our brain chemistry develops is profoundly influenced by our social interactions and learning environments throughout our childhood, and especially in our earliest years.

3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

I don't really understand what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting that social problems are caused by low IQ, rather than merely correlating with it, then I strongly disagree and you'd need one hell of an argument to persuade me otherwise. In what way do IQ differences explain social problems?

They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Or maybe because it is a scientifically flawed conclusion?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 2:20:06 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I just wanted to hear the views of some DDO members on this topic... Personally, I read "the Bell Curve" and was convinced by all of its conclusions. And, I found all the anti-Bell Curve books and articles to be fairly unconvincing, so you know where I stand...

I haven't read it, but have heard of it and read a little about it.

The book's thesis can be summed here:

1.) IQ is a good Measure of Intelligence

That's a completely meaningless statement until you have defined intelligence.

There are many kinds of intelligence. I wouldn't have thought most IQ tests would be an accurate assessment of spatial awareness for example.

If you want to say it's a good measure of intelligence as defined by people who make IQ tests, you would of course be accurate, but otherwise you'll have to define what you mean.

It is a pretty good measure of General Mental Abillity, or G...

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

Yes it certainly is, but environment is at least as significant a factor too.

As well as the many physiological conditions, toxins and physical impacts that can affect brain function, the way our brain chemistry develops is profoundly influenced by our social interactions and learning environments throughout our childhood, and especially in our earliest years.

No and No, Environment Matters... but much less than Genes.

You obviously haven't seen the twin studies

As for early childhood intervention, this effect is shown to entirely fade out


3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

I don't really understand what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting that social problems are caused by low IQ, rather than merely correlating with it, then I strongly disagree and you'd need one hell of an argument to persuade me otherwise. In what way do IQ differences explain social problems?

IQ differences explain things like poverty and crime much better than Socioeconomic Background. People with low IQs are far more likely to take part in crime, have unwed children, and/or be in poverty...

Genetic differences between people explain our social problems better than differences in environment.


They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Or maybe because it is a scientifically flawed conclusion?

Or maybe because the science doesn't support what is politically correct...

Scientific evidence pretty much universally supports the Genetic differences between groups... but, just like Evolution deniers, the anti science left finds small flaws in the science and think that this discounts the entire idea...

Denying that races are different in intelligence because you don't want them to be does not make it so...
President of DDO
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 3:50:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 2:34:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:20:06 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

Yes it certainly is, but environment is at least as significant a factor too.

As well as the many physiological conditions, toxins and physical impacts that can affect brain function, the way our brain chemistry develops is profoundly influenced by our social interactions and learning environments throughout our childhood, and especially in our earliest years.

No and No,

Why two "No"s?

Environment Matters... but much less than Genes.

Bare assertion

You obviously haven't seen the twin studies

Identical twin studies can establish genetic causes, but can't conclusively prove anything about the extent of environmental impacts.

As for early childhood intervention, this effect is shown to entirely fade out

wat?

Do you dispute that the quantity and quality of our earliest interactions have a profound impact on how our brain develops?

Genetics in intelligence can't be dismissed (just look at someone with Down's Syndrome) but neither can environment (just look at someone with fetal alcohol syndrome).


3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

I don't really understand what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting that social problems are caused by low IQ, rather than merely correlating with it, then I strongly disagree and you'd need one hell of an argument to persuade me otherwise. In what way do IQ differences explain social problems?

IQ differences explain things like poverty and crime much better than Socioeconomic Background. People with low IQs are far more likely to take part in crime, have unwed children, and/or be in poverty...

You haven't told me how they explain it at all, all you're observing is correlation and the kinds of correlation you describe could just as easily be interpreted as more evidence for these social problems leading to low IQ.

People in poverty with absent criminal parents are more likely to have lower IQs; That's all you're saying, and at face value it supports an environmental hypothesis pretty well, but in either case it's not a scientific assessment of any kind.

Genetic differences between people explain our social problems better than differences in environment.

How do they explain it? C'mon you might as well spit out your conclusions, do you limit these conclusions to black people in America having criminal genes, or do you think things like obesity and terrorism are primarilly caused by genetics too?

They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Or maybe because it is a scientifically flawed conclusion?

Or maybe because the science doesn't support what is politically correct...

Scientific evidence pretty much universally supports the Genetic differences between groups... but, just like Evolution deniers, the anti science left finds small flaws in the science and think that this discounts the entire idea...

Obviously there are genetic differences between people based on ancestry and it's entirely possible to put individuals into groups if you select any arbitrary trait to distinguish them by. The scientific consensus is that there is more genetic variation within many of these groups than between individuals from different groups. Please don't tell me you're comparing the dubious pseudo-science of "race realist" clowns like Rushton with something as universally accepted as the theory of evolution.

Denying that races are different in intelligence because you don't want them to be does not make it so...

I'm arguing that people score different on IQ tests for cultural and social reasons, as well as individual genetic differences.

Claiming that a group of people is inherently inferior because you want them to be doesn't make it so either.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 5:11:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 3:50:47 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:34:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:20:06 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

Yes it certainly is, but environment is at least as significant a factor too.

As well as the many physiological conditions, toxins and physical impacts that can affect brain function, the way our brain chemistry develops is profoundly influenced by our social interactions and learning environments throughout our childhood, and especially in our earliest years.

No and No,

Why two "No"s?

Environment Matters... but much less than Genes.

Bare assertion

You obviously haven't seen the twin studies

Identical twin studies can establish genetic causes, but can't conclusively prove anything about the extent of environmental impacts.

As for early childhood intervention, this effect is shown to entirely fade out

wat?

Do you dispute that the quantity and quality of our earliest interactions have a profound impact on how our brain develops?

Genetics in intelligence can't be dismissed (just look at someone with Down's Syndrome) but neither can environment (just look at someone with fetal alcohol syndrome).


3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

I don't really understand what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting that social problems are caused by low IQ, rather than merely correlating with it, then I strongly disagree and you'd need one hell of an argument to persuade me otherwise. In what way do IQ differences explain social problems?

IQ differences explain things like poverty and crime much better than Socioeconomic Background. People with low IQs are far more likely to take part in crime, have unwed children, and/or be in poverty...

You haven't told me how they explain it at all, all you're observing is correlation and the kinds of correlation you describe could just as easily be interpreted as more evidence for these social problems leading to low IQ.

People in poverty with absent criminal parents are more likely to have lower IQs; That's all you're saying, and at face value it supports an environmental hypothesis pretty well, but in either case it's not a scientific assessment of any kind.

Genetic differences between people explain our social problems better than differences in environment.

How do they explain it? C'mon you might as well spit out your conclusions, do you limit these conclusions to black people in America having criminal genes, or do you think things like obesity and terrorism are primarilly caused by genetics too?

They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Or maybe because it is a scientifically flawed conclusion?

Or maybe because the science doesn't support what is politically correct...

Scientific evidence pretty much universally supports the Genetic differences between groups... but, just like Evolution deniers, the anti science left finds small flaws in the science and think that this discounts the entire idea...

Obviously there are genetic differences between people based on ancestry and it's entirely possible to put individuals into groups if you select any arbitrary trait to distinguish them by. The scientific consensus is that there is more genetic variation within many of these groups than between individuals from different groups. Please don't tell me you're comparing the dubious pseudo-science of "race realist" clowns like Rushton with something as universally accepted as the theory of evolution.

Denying that races are different in intelligence because you don't want them to be does not make it so...

I'm arguing that people score different on IQ tests for cultural and social reasons, as well as individual genetic differences.

Claiming that a group of people is inherently inferior because you want them to be doesn't make it so either.

This is total bullshiit. You leftists have no place calling the Right Anti Science when you say things like this.

So, basically you're trying to say that there is a scientific consensus that Intelligence differences only exist within groups than they are between groups. This is hilariously wrong. In fact, the opposite is true....

It's actually quite simple...

People of European Descent (whites), evolved in similiar environments... This means that they are fairly similiar to each other (even though there are definitley differences between them)... This is why they are all white

People of African Descent (Blacks), evolved in similiar environments... this means taht they are fairly similar to each other.... This is why they are all black

Now, blacks, as a whole, evolved in a very different environment for the past 50,000 or so years than whites as a whole...

Now, we both agree genes play some role in Intelligence. And, we know genes differ because of the environments they evolved in...

Of course, there are differences... Why would you expect it to be the same?

Because it makes you feel all warm inside, right?

Now, you say you believe in evolution... Well, this is what evolution is... It explains biodiversity, Including differences between humans

Groups, by their nature, are pretty similiar...

After all, they evolved in the same environments..

This actually incredibly simple. Unless, of course, you're one of those nutty Creationists!!

As for your other points, IQ can help explain social problems.

This is because the IQ- Social Problem correlation remains strong even after controlling for SocioEconomic Background. If poverty caused low IQ, Socioeconomic background should have a stronger correlation than IQ.

Um, and It is not a bare assertion... Twin Studies have established an IQ heritability well north of 50%, at around 70% or 80%. This goes back to my last point. IQ is shown to be very heritable, meaning that Social Problems are probably not the cause of Low IQ.

And, I absolutely dispute the efffects of Programs like Head Start.

It is a fact that any IQ gains from head start fade out a few years later...

One thing that is interesting is that genetics play a larger role as you get older...

Poor kids adopted into rich families have IQs more like their adoptive parents at young ages, but they become almost identical to their biological parents by their late teens...
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 12:26:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 5:11:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:50:47 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:34:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:20:06 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

Yes it certainly is, but environment is at least as significant a factor too.

As well as the many physiological conditions, toxins and physical impacts that can affect brain function, the way our brain chemistry develops is profoundly influenced by our social interactions and learning environments throughout our childhood, and especially in our earliest years.

No and No,

Why two "No"s?

Environment Matters... but much less than Genes.

Bare assertion

You obviously haven't seen the twin studies

Identical twin studies can establish genetic causes, but can't conclusively prove anything about the extent of environmental impacts.

As for early childhood intervention, this effect is shown to entirely fade out

wat?

Do you dispute that the quantity and quality of our earliest interactions have a profound impact on how our brain develops?

Genetics in intelligence can't be dismissed (just look at someone with Down's Syndrome) but neither can environment (just look at someone with fetal alcohol syndrome).


3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

I don't really understand what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting that social problems are caused by low IQ, rather than merely correlating with it, then I strongly disagree and you'd need one hell of an argument to persuade me otherwise. In what way do IQ differences explain social problems?

IQ differences explain things like poverty and crime much better than Socioeconomic Background. People with low IQs are far more likely to take part in crime, have unwed children, and/or be in poverty...

You haven't told me how they explain it at all, all you're observing is correlation and the kinds of correlation you describe could just as easily be interpreted as more evidence for these social problems leading to low IQ.

People in poverty with absent criminal parents are more likely to have lower IQs; That's all you're saying, and at face value it supports an environmental hypothesis pretty well, but in either case it's not a scientific assessment of any kind.

Genetic differences between people explain our social problems better than differences in environment.

How do they explain it? C'mon you might as well spit out your conclusions, do you limit these conclusions to black people in America having criminal genes, or do you think things like obesity and terrorism are primarilly caused by genetics too?

They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Or maybe because it is a scientifically flawed conclusion?

Or maybe because the science doesn't support what is politically correct...

Scientific evidence pretty much universally supports the Genetic differences between groups... but, just like Evolution deniers, the anti science left finds small flaws in the science and think that this discounts the entire idea...

Obviously there are genetic differences between people based on ancestry and it's entirely possible to put individuals into groups if you select any arbitrary trait to distinguish them by. The scientific consensus is that there is more genetic variation within many of these groups than between individuals from different groups. Please don't tell me you're comparing the dubious pseudo-science of "race realist" clowns like Rushton with something as universally accepted as the theory of evolution.

Denying that races are different in intelligence because you don't want them to be does not make it so...

I'm arguing that people score different on IQ tests for cultural and social reasons, as well as individual genetic differences.

Claiming that a group of people is inherently inferior because you want them to be doesn't make it so either.

This is total bullshiit. You leftists have no place calling the Right Anti Science when you say things like this.

So, basically you're trying to say that there is a scientific consensus that Intelligence differences only exist within groups than they are between groups. This is hilariously wrong. In fact, the opposite is true....

It's actually quite simple...

People of European Descent (whites), evolved in similiar environments... This means that they are fairly similiar to each other (even though there are definitley differences between them)... This is why they are all white

People of African Descent (Blacks), evolved in similiar environments... this means taht they are fairly similar to each other.... This is why they are all black

Now, blacks, as a whole, evolved in a very different environment for the past 50,000 or so years than whites as a whole...

Now, we both agree genes play some role in Intelligence. And, we know genes differ because of the environments they evolved in...

Of course, there are differences... Why would you expect it to be the same?

Because it makes you feel all warm inside, right?

Now, you say you believe in evolution... Well, this is what evolution is... It explains biodiversity, Including differences between humans

Groups, by their nature, are pretty similiar...

After all, they evolved in the same environments..

This actually incredibly simple. Unless, of course, you're one of those nutty Creationists!!


As for your other points, IQ can help explain social problems.

This is because the IQ- Social Problem correlation remains strong even after controlling for SocioEconomic Background. If poverty caused low IQ, Socioeconomic background should have a stronger correlation than IQ.


Um, and It is not a bare assertion... Twin Studies have established an IQ heritability well north of 50%, at around 70% or 80%. This goes back to my last point. IQ is shown to be very heritable, meaning that Social Problems are probably not the cause of Low IQ.

And, I absolutely dispute the efffects of Programs like Head Start.

It is a fact that any IQ gains from head start fade out a few years later...

One thing that is interesting is that genetics play a larger role as you get older...

Poor kids adopted into rich families have IQs more like their adoptive parents at young ages, but they become almost identical to their biological parents by their late teens...

Why not debate this with me, you have 1 day, 22 hours, and 30 minutes left to reply to the debate you started, or you forfeit round 2.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 1:33:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 12:26:06 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/25/2011 5:11:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/25/2011 3:50:47 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:34:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/25/2011 2:20:06 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:29:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

2.) IQ is significantly Genetic

Yes it certainly is, but environment is at least as significant a factor too.

As well as the many physiological conditions, toxins and physical impacts that can affect brain function, the way our brain chemistry develops is profoundly influenced by our social interactions and learning environments throughout our childhood, and especially in our earliest years.

No and No,

Why two "No"s?

Environment Matters... but much less than Genes.

Bare assertion

You obviously haven't seen the twin studies

Identical twin studies can establish genetic causes, but can't conclusively prove anything about the extent of environmental impacts.

As for early childhood intervention, this effect is shown to entirely fade out

wat?

Do you dispute that the quantity and quality of our earliest interactions have a profound impact on how our brain develops?

Genetics in intelligence can't be dismissed (just look at someone with Down's Syndrome) but neither can environment (just look at someone with fetal alcohol syndrome).


3.) IQ differences can explain social problem better than anything else

I don't really understand what you mean by this, but if you're suggesting that social problems are caused by low IQ, rather than merely correlating with it, then I strongly disagree and you'd need one hell of an argument to persuade me otherwise. In what way do IQ differences explain social problems?

IQ differences explain things like poverty and crime much better than Socioeconomic Background. People with low IQs are far more likely to take part in crime, have unwed children, and/or be in poverty...

You haven't told me how they explain it at all, all you're observing is correlation and the kinds of correlation you describe could just as easily be interpreted as more evidence for these social problems leading to low IQ.

People in poverty with absent criminal parents are more likely to have lower IQs; That's all you're saying, and at face value it supports an environmental hypothesis pretty well, but in either case it's not a scientific assessment of any kind.

Genetic differences between people explain our social problems better than differences in environment.

How do they explain it? C'mon you might as well spit out your conclusions, do you limit these conclusions to black people in America having criminal genes, or do you think things like obesity and terrorism are primarilly caused by genetics too?

They don't talk about race nearly as much as I thought... They do suggest that racial differences are somewhat genetic... but, they really try to be too modest about this, because it is a politically incorrect reality... lol

Or maybe because it is a scientifically flawed conclusion?

Or maybe because the science doesn't support what is politically correct...

Scientific evidence pretty much universally supports the Genetic differences between groups... but, just like Evolution deniers, the anti science left finds small flaws in the science and think that this discounts the entire idea...

Obviously there are genetic differences between people based on ancestry and it's entirely possible to put individuals into groups if you select any arbitrary trait to distinguish them by. The scientific consensus is that there is more genetic variation within many of these groups than between individuals from different groups. Please don't tell me you're comparing the dubious pseudo-science of "race realist" clowns like Rushton with something as universally accepted as the theory of evolution.

Denying that races are different in intelligence because you don't want them to be does not make it so...

I'm arguing that people score different on IQ tests for cultural and social reasons, as well as individual genetic differences.

Claiming that a group of people is inherently inferior because you want them to be doesn't make it so either.

This is total bullshiit. You leftists have no place calling the Right Anti Science when you say things like this.

So, basically you're trying to say that there is a scientific consensus that Intelligence differences only exist within groups than they are between groups. This is hilariously wrong. In fact, the opposite is true....

It's actually quite simple...

People of European Descent (whites), evolved in similiar environments... This means that they are fairly similiar to each other (even though there are definitley differences between them)... This is why they are all white

People of African Descent (Blacks), evolved in similiar environments... this means taht they are fairly similar to each other.... This is why they are all black

Now, blacks, as a whole, evolved in a very different environment for the past 50,000 or so years than whites as a whole...

Now, we both agree genes play some role in Intelligence. And, we know genes differ because of the environments they evolved in...

Of course, there are differences... Why would you expect it to be the same?

Because it makes you feel all warm inside, right?

Now, you say you believe in evolution... Well, this is what evolution is... It explains biodiversity, Including differences between humans

Groups, by their nature, are pretty similiar...

After all, they evolved in the same environments..

This actually incredibly simple. Unless, of course, you're one of those nutty Creationists!!


As for your other points, IQ can help explain social problems.

This is because the IQ- Social Problem correlation remains strong even after controlling for SocioEconomic Background. If poverty caused low IQ, Socioeconomic background should have a stronger correlation than IQ.


Um, and It is not a bare assertion... Twin Studies have established an IQ heritability well north of 50%, at around 70% or 80%. This goes back to my last point. IQ is shown to be very heritable, meaning that Social Problems are probably not the cause of Low IQ.

And, I absolutely dispute the efffects of Programs like Head Start.

It is a fact that any IQ gains from head start fade out a few years later...

One thing that is interesting is that genetics play a larger role as you get older...

Poor kids adopted into rich families have IQs more like their adoptive parents at young ages, but they become almost identical to their biological parents by their late teens...





Why not debate this with me, you have 1 day, 22 hours, and 30 minutes left to reply to the debate you started, or you forfeit round 2.

Don't worry

I'll have my argument ready by that time.
President of DDO
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:01:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 5:11:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

This is total bullshiit. You leftists have no place calling the Right Anti Science when you say things like this.

Why don't you get your knickers untwisted, and try addressing my arguments and questions rather than just dismissing them as bullsh1t?

So, basically you're trying to say that there is a scientific consensus that Intelligence differences only exist within groups than they are between groups. This is hilariously wrong. In fact, the opposite is true....

That isn't what I said at all and doesn't even make grammatical sense. I was talking about biodiversity in general not just in terms of intelligence and that is science son.

"there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth"
"For example, ~90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within continental groups, and ~10% separates groups"
http://en.wikipedia.org...


It's actually quite simple...

People of European Descent (whites), evolved in similiar environments... This means that they are fairly similiar to each other (even though there are definitley differences between them)... This is why they are all white

So why do some have different texture hair, different colour eyes, different complexions, different bone structures etc. Your choice of dividing by skin colour is arbitrary and also fails completely as soon as you start comparing groups other than "black" and "white".

People of African Descent (Blacks), evolved in similiar environments... this means taht they are fairly similar to each other.... This is why they are all black

I'm thinking we should probably debate some of this stuff some time.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 12:14:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:40:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:30:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:26:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:17:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:14:46 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
No offense, but can you at least put a little bit more in? Whenever I start a thread, I usually go on a huge rant and/or discuss a particular political and/or social topic. You should perhaps do the same. For you to say that we should share our thoughts on IQ and social policy alone is very vague.

Oh shut up. Who are you to ask someone else to expound upon anything when you cower and hide in your racist ways. When you accept a legitimate debate on one your views with a LEGITIMATE member of this site, then I shall get off your back. Until then, you need to shut up.

Nazi vs. Nazi. :p

I'm very offended by that. Please explain.

Authoritarian douches are called nazis. Joseph Mengle is a neo-nazi. Hence nazi vs. nazi.

Actually Nazi are National Socialist, which combines Nationalism and Socialism, not all fascist are Nazi but all Nazi are Fascist.

Authoritarianism is Fascism.

Left Wing is Reformist
Right Wing is Traditionalist
Progressives are Reformist
(traditional) conservatives are traditionalists

Nationalism is Right wing Fascism
Socialism is Left Wing Fascism

The opposite of Fascism is (classic) Liberalism or Libertarianism.

Left Wing Libertarianism is Anarchism
Right Wing Libertarianism is Classic Liberalism

Modern Liberals are Social Liberals combining Progressivism and Classic Liberalism
Modern Conservatives are Liberal Conservatives combining Traditional Conservatism and Classic Liberalism.

So the Fascist Right is;

Nationalists, and Traditional Conservatives

The Libertarian Right is;

Classic Liberals, and Liberal Conservatives

So the Fascist Left is;

Socialists, and Progressives

The Libertarian Left is;

Anarchists, and Social Liberals

So the Fascist Center is;

National Socialists, and Progressive Conservatives

The Libertarian Center is;

Anarcho-Capitalists, and Social Conservatives
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 2:26:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 5:01:27 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/25/2011 5:11:22 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

This is total bullshiit. You leftists have no place calling the Right Anti Science when you say things like this.

Why don't you get your knickers untwisted, and try addressing my arguments and questions rather than just dismissing them as bullsh1t?

So, basically you're trying to say that there is a scientific consensus that Intelligence differences only exist within groups than they are between groups. This is hilariously wrong. In fact, the opposite is true....

That isn't what I said at all and doesn't even make grammatical sense. I was talking about biodiversity in general not just in terms of intelligence and that is science son.

"there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth"
"For example, ~90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within continental groups, and ~10% separates groups"
http://en.wikipedia.org...


It's actually quite simple...

People of European Descent (whites), evolved in similiar environments... This means that they are fairly similiar to each other (even though there are definitley differences between them)... This is why they are all white

So why do some have different texture hair, different colour eyes, different complexions, different bone structures etc. Your choice of dividing by skin colour is arbitrary and also fails completely as soon as you start comparing groups other than "black" and "white".

People of African Descent (Blacks), evolved in similiar environments... this means taht they are fairly similar to each other.... This is why they are all black

I'm thinking we should probably debate some of this stuff some time.

Agreed, I am actually having a related debate with Dant at the time... But, I would love to debate it with you as well...

Maybe in a few days?
President of DDO
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 2:39:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 2:26:10 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/26/2011 5:01:27 AM, feverish wrote:

I'm thinking we should probably debate some of this stuff some time.

Agreed, I am actually having a related debate with Dant at the time... But, I would love to debate it with you as well...

Maybe in a few days?

A few weeks (like two or three) would probably suit me better to be honest mate, as long as you don't mind waiting. I lack time and energy for multiple intense DDO activities right now. I've just accepted a debate on social darwinism and I'm due to mod the next small mafia game. After that, would most definitely be a pleasure to debate you.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:47:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 2:39:00 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/26/2011 2:26:10 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 9/26/2011 5:01:27 AM, feverish wrote:

I'm thinking we should probably debate some of this stuff some time.

Agreed, I am actually having a related debate with Dant at the time... But, I would love to debate it with you as well...

Maybe in a few days?

A few weeks (like two or three) would probably suit me better to be honest mate, as long as you don't mind waiting. I lack time and energy for multiple intense DDO activities right now. I've just accepted a debate on social darwinism and I'm due to mod the next small mafia game. After that, would most definitely be a pleasure to debate you.

Lol, a few weeks probably works better for me too

look forward to it...
President of DDO