Re: No Genius Left Behind

MIB529 wrote:
> 
> "R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > well...Niels Bohr would be fairly right-brained. At least compared to
> > > > > > > > > Einstein. What about Erwin Schrodinger? Yet subatomic particles still
> > > > > > > > > exist, and they still behave so unpredictably.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > An interesting thing ignored by Yerkes's tests in the Army: Northern
> > > > > > > > > blacks beat Southern whites.
> > > > > > > > ------------
> > > > > > > > Now why don't I doubt that??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it's nice to throw makemyday's whole perspective out of whack.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Naturally, it was one of the few sections ignored entirely by the 
> > > > > > > majority.
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > Hahahahah!
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember, Steve, this was the era of eugenics. Essentially, any trait
> > > > > not putting whites and specifically Germanic speakers on top was
> > > > > thrown out or explained away. In fact, it was only within the last
> > > > > couple decades that Orientals were given top position on IQ by
> > > > > biological determinists, and only then because Japan and South Korea
> > > > > are hard to ignore.
> > > > -----------------------
> > > > I would have nothing against Asians being smarter, if true. Their
> > > > cultures are more perceptive and more peaceful, but it simply isn't
> > > > true!
> > >
> > > Well, it's based on three important ideas:
> > >
> > > 1) Intelligence is hereditary.
> > -----------------
> > It isn't, it is learned at home, which makes it seem so, no more.
> 
> I know that.
--------------------
Uh-huh.

 
> > > 2) IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence.
> > ------------------
> > Nonsense, but it is one KIND of measure.
> 
> And I know that too.
-------------------------
Uh-huh.

 
> > > 3) Northern Europe selected more for intelligence than _insert
> > > appropriate other environment_.
> > ---------------------
> > That might be valid, but is the time-frame sufficient? We don't know.
> 
> It isn't. In the animal kingdom, K-selection correlates with
> intelligence. Logically enough, diabetes correlates with K-selection.
> Northern Europeans have the lowest rate of diabetes.
----------------------------------
That whole K-selection notion is pig-ignorant racism. Discredited.

 
> > > IF Japanese and Koreans have lower IQs THEN NOT 2
> > -----------------------
> > They don't, in fact the single most startling thing about the whole
> > issue of IQ is that it IS so close to being a human universal!! Each
> > major population on earth has an IQ as a whole that is within a scant
> > few percent, and those "errors" can be dismissed methodologically and
> > culturally by statisticians.
> 
> What I MEANT, Steve, is that they chose it in order to save 2. (Until
> the 80s, the universal white-racist line was that Japanese and Koreans
> had a mean IQ of 90.) Essentially, eugenists make up these IQ stats as
> they go.
---------------------------
Yep.

 
> > > Therefore, the only logical thing to do admit that Japanese and
> > > Koreans have higher IQs. But they never mention North Koreans or
> > > Koreans living in Japan; both have much lower IQs than South Koreans
> > > or Japanese. After all, then they'll either have to admit variation
> > > within members of the same race (and thus by extension NOT 3) or say
> > > NOT 1.
> > ------------------------
> > Their difference is a scant few percent, it is often cited, but it is
> > statistically insignificant and NOT beyond the inherent error of the
> > tests!
> 
> 30 points between North Koreans and South Koreans is not beyond the
> inherent error? O-kay...
------------------------------
The South is industrial and educated, and an uneducated class in the
North drags the average low, of course it's reasonable, just not a
measure of "intellect", but merely achievement. You have to be careful
to know what it is you've measured.

 
> > > > > Another thing you'll notice is, variation within members of the same
> > > > > race is largely ignored by biological determinists: The reason is
> > > > > given by Phillippe Rushton himself; it 'obfuscates heirarchal order'.
> > > > > (Read: He can't get the results he wants unless he fudges his
> > > > > numbers.)
> > > > ------------------
> > > > Indeed!
> > >
> > > A lot of early biological determinists committed the same error
> > > subconsciously; it's so nice of Phillippe to put his bias on the table
> > > for us. A variant is to special plead away traits that might go
> > > against whites. Or even use metaphysical arguments. (No, I'm not
> > > thinking of the various 'spiritual' arguments of Nazi ideology.
> > > Charles Spearman argued that g was innate. When no one found a
> > > chemical or brain tissue responsible for g, Spearman resorted to
> > > vitalism.)
> > -------------------------
> > People have abandoned the mathematical science on this, and ignored
> > the simple facts about the numbers they gathered. There aren't enough
> > differences between human groups to argue about, and nobody has set
> > about subtracting out the variables of culture.
> 
> The fallacy is called reification: They took an immaterial thing (IQ)
> and convinced themselves there was some gene for IQ and IQ alone.
-------------------------------
Sure.

 
> Spearman eventually recanted, but his heirs, such as Jensen, still
> insist on this g factor.
---------------------------
All those successive "factors" were bogus statistically.
Steve