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!

 
> 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!

 
> > > > > Perhaps better than 'generic intelligence' (i.e., a genius), we should
> > > > > focus on specific parts of the brain.
> > > > --------------
> > > > Now if we only understood what they did.
> > >
> > > I guess I meant we should focus on specialties.
> > -------------------
> > Sure. There are things we can say, but understanding is going to
> > still take a while!
> 
> For example, I can't figure out for the life of me how being better at
> math would make someone a better lawyer.
----------------------
If being a lawyer is all you want to do, then perhaps.
But it would mean you lack breadth of interests.
Steve