Re: No Genius Left Behind

"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.
2) IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence.
3) Northern Europe selected more for intelligence than _insert
appropriate other environment_.

IF Japanese and Koreans have lower IQs THEN NOT 2

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.

> > 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.)