Racism

[scram 1]

personally, yes. i was a guest speaker in a hamilton private high school class on plato, but i'd hardly use that to say that i'm directly familiar with adolescent development in academics.

OK, so this 'puzzle-of-anecdote' assembles itself as such:

fwiw, my personal experience as a teacher tells me that socioeconomic factors influence intelligence a hell of a lot more than do genetics.

i taught classes on religion and philosophy at mcmaster university in hamilton, ontario before i ditched academia to play poker.also fwiw, i have friends who teach at both the high school and elementary school levels that hold similar sentiments with regard to the effects of economic standing upon their students' performance.

personally, yes. i was a guest speaker in a hamilton private high school class on plato, but i'd hardly use that to say that i'm directly familiar with adolescent development in academics.

Do I even need to point out the glaring flaw there, or should I let you preemptively do that so you can maybe cobble up some sort of a defense for it in advance and save us all the time?(Hint- Your experience as a teacher at the college level and your initial claim that your same "experience as a teacher" has a lot to do with it)

[checkymcfold 0]

OK, so this 'puzzle-of-anecdote' assembles itself as such:

i'm not quite sure what you're trying to set me up for, but fire away, sunshine. that's fair so far.edit: unless you're going to say that you have a more robust experience with the refinement of whatever you want to call innate intelligence than i do. that would kind of make me LOL, but go right ahead.

[vbnautilus 48]

Sweet. After-the-fact qualifiers.They sure make a debate easy, don't they.

WOW?! Read more carefully please if you intend to be this rude about what you do not understand. I wrote:

I happen to know that there is no evidence of functional brain differences across races. There is also no good evidence for anatomical differences, although people have certainly tried to find them. We are currently collecting a very large dataset which, if there are such differences, will find them.

I thought it was pretty clear that the second sentence was also referring to the brain, but if not, then I apologize. The dataset we are collecting consists of functional and anatomical brain scans on an extremely large population. This is not an after-the-fact qualifier. Sorry.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Why is it that poor white trash hick children are dumb, Scram?

[checkymcfold 0]

Why is it that poor white trash hick children are dumb, Scram?

they're black on the inside, obv.scram: here's my "preemptive defense":you base your theories on intelligence on personal experience. i say i have experience as a teacher (probably more than you, but i could be wrong), which it would be fairly logical to correlate more directly with knowing how people learn than, say, going to prison. you point out that my teaching is largely limited to the college level. ok, that is true. i still don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say that that still leaves me better qualified to make claims about how intelligence develops (as based on experience) than you. ball, your court.

[scram 1]

Why is it that poor white trash hick children are dumb, Scram?

Poor genetics.If someone were to say that "all whites are smarter than any Negro", that would be terribly incorrect.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

they're black on the inside, obv.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

Poor genetics.If someone were to say that "all whites are smarter than any Negro", that would be terribly incorrect.

So it has literally nothing to do with socio-economic conditions?

[scram 1]

WOW?! Read more carefully please if you intend to be this rude about what you do not understand. I wrote:I thought it was pretty clear that the second sentence was also referring to the brain, but if not, then I apologize. The dataset we are collecting consists of functional and anatomical brain scans on an extremely large population. This is not an after-the-fact qualifier. Sorry.

Three things:1) Your own lack of clarity was the issue there. There'e even a very real chance that this come-lately qualifier is simply a dodge. 2) If genetics can determine physical differences, then is it possible than they can dictate differences in human intelligence? 3) I find it very interesting that you keep suggesting that you personally are participating in some sort of a study. If so, CLASSIC example of the sort of people who are managing these studies. The human desire to "believe" (god, equality, the boogie man- whatever) and summarily craft some sort of rationale for our beliefs is much, much stronger than our desire to actually seek and find the truth.

[scram 1]

So it has literally nothing to do with socio-economic conditions?

No, I don't think so. I believe that the environment completely dictates ones base of knowledge, but ones ability to problem-solve and their overall intelligence is enormously influenced by favorable genetics. It's usually best to have this discussion in the context of Ashkenazi Jews rather than Negroes, since the top end of the curve is far less offensive than the bottom.

[checkymcfold 0]

i was fishing for a pic of erik ryland, or at least of lilholdem.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

No, I don't think so. I believe that the environment completely dictates ones base of knowledge, but their ability to problem-solve and their overall intelligence is enormously influenced by favorable genetics. It's usually best to have this discussion in the context of Ashkenazi Jews rather than Negroes, since it's less offensive.

So then, by proxy, the blacks that are intelligent and can problem solve and are well-accomplished are just well above the mean?I would just wonder that if the correlation between unintelligent blacks and unintelligent whites is that they're both poor, that if they're poor because they're unintelligent or if they're all just unlearned because of the money factor, rather than unable to be learned. Of course, there is a difference in unlearned and unintelligent..and how can you judge someone to be unintelligent when they've never had the opportunity/the means/the push/drive/outlet to be learned?

[checkymcfold 0]

No, I don't think so. I believe that the environment completely dictates ones base of knowledge, but ones ability to problem-solve and their overall intelligence is enormously influenced by favorable genetics.

ah, ok, this is an interesting distinction. you are aware, though, that you can teach people how to problem-solve, right? it's similar, or at least analogous, to teaching logic in an introductory philosophy course.i'm still not sure how you want to quantify whatever you're calling intelligence. i argued against the quantification of intelligence in your thread on equality in the religion forum. i can cross-post if you want.

[vbnautilus 48]

Three things:1) Your own lack of clarity was the issue there. There'e even a very real chance that this come-lately qualifier is simply a dodge.

It's not, but if it was a communication failure on my part then fair enough. But I was referring to the brain, and I think if you readback through the history of my posts on this topic you'll find that I consistently have done that.

2) If genetics can determine physical differences, then is it possible than they can dictate differences in human intelligence?

Yes it is.

3) I find it very interesting that you keep suggesting that you personally are participating in some sort of a study. If so, CLASSIC example of the sort of people who are managing these studies. The human desire to "believe" (god, equality, the boogie man- whatever) is much, much stronger than our desire to actually seek and find the truth.

Our study is not about race directly, so no one really has an interest in that. We are building a large atlas of the human brain based on scanning thousands of people.. Anatomical scans, vascular scans, and functional brain imaging on a variety of cognitive tests. Since we collect data on age, gender, race, etc. we'll be able to look at how these factors relate to brain anatomy and function, but this certainly isn't a study motivated by proving equalities. The main goal is to answer some basic science questions about the relationship of anatomy to function. Many of my colleagues are influenced by the kind of thought process you are talking about, so I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Particularly further along in their careers many scientists develop a strong attachment to their theories and an interest in proving them right. I am personally open to any evidence that racial groups differ in brain function or structure; it simply doesn't exist.(p.s. are you sure you don't have a "desire to believe" that I am not seriously interested in the truth?)

[donk4life 34]

Still has weight issues (too thin) and is on anti-seizure medicine. Her personality is pretty much back though and she drives and stays alone with her kids so that's good. She's going to go back to work in January. She's a little ancy and work might stress her out, but we'll see. I think by summertime she'll be where everyone in the family remembered her before.So basically she's getting better still, just a super slow process. Everything going well with your sis?

Weird thing happened with my sister.. We took her out of the hospital in late July and was at near 100 percent in 3 weeks... So yeah.. i don't think she ever had encephalitis.. hell no one knows what she had.. it was just strange...

[scram 1]

So then, by proxy, the blacks that are intelligent and can problem solve and are well-accomplished are just well above the mean?

Yes

I would just wonder that if the correlation between unintelligent blacks and unintelligent whites is that they're both poor, that if they're poor because they're unintelligent or if they're all just unlearned because of the money factor, rather than unable to be learned.

No.

Of course, there is a difference in unlearned and unintelligent..and how can you judge someone to be unintelligent when they've never had the opportunity/the means/the push/drive/outlet to be learned?

Because intelligence and academics are two different things.

[scram 1]

ah, ok, this is an interesting distinction. you are aware, though, that you can teach people how to problem-solve, right? it's similar, or at least analogous, to teaching logic in an introductory philosophy course.

No matter how hard you "practice", you will never, ever be able to play chess on the level of Gary Kasparov. Or me. Or any random person, for that matter. You can teach people the theoretical mechanisms that will allow them to approach problems correctly, but their ability to decipher the variables and ultimately come to the right conclusion boils down to something that is entirely innate (and unequal, and unfair)Ask any of your primary school educator friends if they have kids who are from bad backgrounds but are seriously intelligent. Maybe they can't name all the countries in Europe, but if presented with problems, they usually come to the right conclusion. They have insights and abilities that are far beyond their equally disadvantaged peers. Ask these "friends" if they know of kids like this.According to your general philosophy on this issue, these kids don't exist (or, if they do, then maybe you have to revisit your concepts)

[vbnautilus 48]

No matter how hard you "practice", you will never, ever be able to play chess on the level of Gary Kasparov. Or me. Or any random person, for that matter. You can teach people the theoretical mechanisms that will allow them to approach problems correctly, but their ability to decipher the variables and ultimately come to the right conclusion boils down to something that is entirely innate (and unequal, and unfair)

The alternative is that you must be taught during a critical period of development. We know that certain abilities work this way. Whether the basic functions that go into chess mastery do or not is an empirical question.

[Loismustdie 0]

all I know is that if a category 5 hurricane is headed towards my town which also happens to be below sea level, I'd go somewhere else for a week or so.

Bwahahahaha. So simple yet so irrefutable. You know, Scram makes some interesting points-Slaves were bred for size and speed, right? That worked relatively well, right? What if those same slaves weren't to bright, because of there genetic makeup? Isn't it possible that a side effect of that system was also a systematic dumbing down of the black gene pool? I don't mean is it fact, is it possible?

[Loismustdie 0]

all I know is that if a category 5 hurricane is headed towards my town which also happens to be below sea level, I'd go somewhere else for a week or so.

Bwahahahaha. So simple yet so irrefutable. You know, Scram makes some interesting points-Slaves were bred for size and speed, right? That worked relatively well, right? What if those same slaves weren't to bright, because of there genetic makeup? Isn't it possible that a side effect of that system was also a systematic dumbing down of the black gene pool? I don't mean is it fact, is it possible?

[checkymcfold 0]

No matter how hard you "practice", you will never, ever be able to play chess on the level of Gary Kasparov. Or me. Or any random person, for that matter. You can teach people the theoretical mechanisms that will allow them to approach problems correctly, but their ability to decipher the variables and ultimately come to the right conclusion boils down to something that is entirely innate (and unequal, and unfair)Ask any of your primary school educator friends if they have kids who are from bad backgrounds but are seriously intelligent. Maybe they can't name all the countries in Europe, but if presented with problems, they usually come to the right conclusion. They have insights and abilities that are far beyond their equally disadvantaged peers. Ask these "friends" if they know of kids like this.According to your general philosophy on this issue, these kids don't exist (or, if they do, then maybe you have to revisit your concepts)

i wouldn't deny that there is some sort of genetic influence upon whatever you're calling "intelligence," but my point is that when trying to quantify that, the data becomes so profoundly muddled with environmental influences that you don't actually end up with anything meaningful to analyze. is kasparov better than me at chess? of course. but i'd also argue that no matter how hard he works at it, i'd **** him up at a HU horse game, or probably in a philosophical argument as well. all of those games require reasoning, just of a different sort.IQ tests, which i think we'd both agree are the best current indicator we have of something like intelligence, are super ****ed up as well. i took a couple about 5 years ago, on back to back days as a favor for my psychology professor neighbor. i scored 30 points lower on the second day. did my genes change overnight?i also grew up on food stamps in one of the poorest areas of southwest virginia. does that make me a statistical outlier or a valid counterexample?

[Jennings7 0]

So far I give this match to Scram. His posts have been well thought out and easy to understand, while also making the most sense. His rebuttals have been extremely strong, while most of the rebuttals against him have been terrible. Also, one of the main detractors of Scram has been checkymcfold, who can't even learn to capitalize the first letter in the beginning of ANY of his sentences, proving he is not as intelligent as he would like to sound.

[Loismustdie 0]

The alternative is that you must be taught during a critical period of development. We know that certain abilities work this way. Whether the basic functions that go into chess mastery do or not is an empirical question.

You don't have to go as far as chess...you could go as low as carpentry. I know plenty of people, that even taught by the best, would never get it. Everybody cannot learn everything. If my penis size is dictated entirely by genetics, why wouldn't my intelligence be? The argument could be made that environment could make it worse, but there would still always be a plateau. I always hated the whole,"You can be anything you ant to be." No, you can't. Not if you're a dummy.

[SuperJon 175]

racism = i scram spooky.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

racism = i scram spooky.

You just blew my mind.Now allow me to blow you.