I.Q. It's largely inherited - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

godef · 06-24-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

I don't want to mention that East Asians score five to six points higher than whites, because that might be against forum rules. Or is it all right to do that to whites, as opposed to politically preferred minorities?

It's all very confusing.

You really have to ask? Your lack of intellect is showing. If it's statistically based, there's no problem with what you said.

PatriotsReign · 06-25-2009, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Regardless of the fictions of the media. Here's an example. Almost Two Orders of Magnitude

Sir Cyril Burt was right in his identical twin studies. Arthur Jensen is one of the great social scientists now living. 12/01/02 - "A King among Men: Arthur Jensen"

BTW, IQ is the most studied concept in the social science, and the evidence is repeated in hundreds and hundreds of studies: IQ is both meaningful and largely inherited. Didn't you read that in _The Bell Curve_?

I don't want to mention that East Asians score five to six points higher than whites, because that might be against forum rules. Or is it all right to do that to whites, as opposed to politically preferred minorities?

It's all very confusing.

So is your intention to provide us with interesting facts or to stir the pot with your foolish comments on asians vs. caucasians? WTF was that all about?

Another interesting fact is how some people are so damn proud of how intelligent they are when in fact it isn't something they have a right to be proud of since it's something they're born with.

It's like a beautiful woman who's stuck up believing that her beauty is something she has a right to be proud of. Those are very sad people indeed.

PatriotsReign · 06-25-2009, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Here's another discussion that we could have as a result of understanding how IQ is largely inherited: 02/27/02 - The Intelligence Of Nations

I have a feeling that this subject, which is not so verboten in East Asian countries, will gradually be discussed more and more in the upcoming decades.

Why do I get the impression you REALLY want to discuss something else entirely and are attempting to lead others down that road with you?

I'm prolly wrong...you wouldn't have THAT low of an IQ

***maverick4*** · 06-25-2009, 05:38 AM

IQ tests don't test your knowledge. SAT II subject tests test your knowledge.

I thought IQ was supposed measure one's inherent intelligence, ability to pick up new things, understand, and analyze new concepts.

PatsFanInVa · 06-25-2009, 06:32 AM

That's correct, Mav. So Michael, nice infusion of utterly irrelevant information, but to put it in a way that applies to your examples, it is inclusion in the set that could come up with E=MC2 that would be measured in an IQ test, not that one would have read E=MC2 in a book. Accordingly, your inability to grasp what IQ measures, and your stated inability to understand the equation you discuss, does not necessarily mean you have a low IQ. You may have a very high IQ, yet scrupulously shield yourself from acquiring knowledge, for example by only reading five lines of anything.

One does not have to have an enormous IQ to make a big contribution based on the mind, but it does help a lot. Muggsy Bogues was in the NBA. Nevertheless, most NBA players are quite a bit taller.

The set of "People Who Significantly Advance Humanity" includes a disproportionately large contingent of those 2 deviations above the norm in terms of IQ.

However, the set of "People with High IQs" also includes an enormous number of useless dillweeds as well.

PFnV

PatsWSB47 · 06-25-2009, 06:49 AM

This may be straying a bit from the original point of the post...not quite sure what that was yet though but IQ, intelligence knowledge etc seems to be the one area that a person may be challenged in that somehow escapes the need for any political correctness. If a person is crippled, or blind or deaf then you must never joke about or belittle that person in any way shape or form. On the other hand if a person is seen to mentally challenged in any way then go for it. It’s the funniest schit ever……even if they are not, then the attack their intelligence anyway. Somehow that is acceptable?

PatsFanInVa · 06-25-2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

This may be straying a bit from the original point of the post...not quite sure what that was yet though but IQ, intelligence knowledge etc seems to be the one area that a person may be challenged in that somehow escapes the need for any political correctness. If a person is crippled, or blind or deaf then you must never joke about or belittle that person in any way shape or form. On the other hand if a person is seen to mentally challenged in any way then go for it. It’s the funniest schit ever……even if they are not, then the attack their intelligence anyway. Somehow that is acceptable?

I think here it's treated acceptable as a standin for ridicule of an argument. But were we to admit there are a range of IQs in the world, and that a significant insight may come from someone lower or higher on that scale, it's pretty moot. Political boards inflame passions, and evidently anger is a big motivator when such discussions are concerned.

So in a perfect world, you're absolutely right. We wouldn't run around ridiculing people with the misfortune of being less natively intelligent. I've had this pointed out to me by a significant other in the past... it totally brought me up short. Up until that point I had thought that people who were referred to as dumb just had to think harder.

The opposite pertains as well, of course. If you're 2 standard deviations above the norm, it stands to reason that the norm (the 100 IQ set) seems to the geniuses the same way the mentally retarded appear to those in the thickest part of the distribution (speaking visually, not punning.)

So maybe if you're wicked smaht you shouldn't make less wicked smaht people feel bad if you can help it, the same way as if you're so-so you shouldn't mock the retarded.

PFnV

***Michael*** · 06-25-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

That's correct, Mav. So Michael, nice infusion of utterly irrelevant information, but to put it in a way that applies to your examples, it is inclusion in the set that could come up with E=MC2 that would be measured in an IQ test, not that one would have read E=MC2 in a book. Accordingly, your inability to grasp what IQ measures, and your stated inability to understand the equation you discuss, does not necessarily mean you have a low IQ. You may have a very high IQ, yet scrupulously shield yourself from acquiring knowledge, for example by only reading five lines of anything.

One does not have to have an enormous IQ to make a big contribution based on the mind, but it does help a lot. Muggsy Bogues was in the NBA. Nevertheless, most NBA players are quite a bit taller.

The set of "People Who Significantly Advance Humanity" includes a disproportionately large contingent of those 2 deviations above the norm in terms of IQ.

However, the set of "People with High IQs" also includes an enormous number of useless dillweeds as well.

PFnV

I read quite a bit actually. I don't read long winded posts, such as yours, because they all full of pablum and offer me nothing but opinion. It would not increase anyone's knowledge with anything worthwhile. Nice try at trying to insult me again but, you have only failed yet again. You are so emotionally immature I pity anyone that actually has to spend any time with you.