Racism

[checkymcfold 0]

So far I give this match to Scram. His posts have been well though 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.

sound argumentation. i'm sure glad you're umpiring this "match."

[Jennings7 0]

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?

I disagree with this, but am way to drunk to offer a bunch of reasons...plus I'm really craving Taco Bell and am about to walk there. (3 miles away)

[vbnautilus 48]

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?

It most surely is influenced by genetics (dictated is probably too strong a word), as pretty much everything is. The problem is that it's next to impossible to determine what someone's potential would have been given different experiences. The fact that you cannot teach an adult certain things is not evidence that they were never able to learn it. Language is the most obvious example of this; after a certain age its next to impossible to learn how to pronounce foreign phonemes, but before a certain age its relatively easy for everyone to learn.

[Jennings7 0]

sound argumentation. i'm sure glad you're umpiring this "match."

No Problem. I'm not kidding though. It is so incredibly irritating to me to read a sentence that isn't capitalized that I have trouble paying attention to the rest of the post.

[checkymcfold 0]

I disagree with this, but am way to drunk to offer a bunch of reasons...plus I'm really craving Taco Bell and am about to walk there. (3 miles away)

sure is tough to argue without validating one's data, ain't it?

[checkymcfold 0]

No Problem. I'm not kidding though. It is so incredibly irritating to me to read a sentence that isn't capitalized that I have trouble paying attention to the rest of the post.

ok. i usually defend my lack of capitalization with a line from an ee cummings poem, but i'm reasonably sure it'd be lost on you.enjoy taco bell. i recommend the grilled stuft burrito.

[SuperJon 175]

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

I'm ready.

[Jennings7 0]

ok. enjoy taco bell.

Alright, now you are just being stubborn. Also, I do find it hard to believe that a former college professor such as yourself doesn't have the ability to enjoy the pleasures of capitalization.

[checkymcfold 0]

Alright, now you are just being stubborn. Also, I do find it hard to believe that a former college professor such as yourself doesn't have the ability to enjoy the pleasures of capitalization.

i wasn't a professor. i was a graduate student who was fortunate enough to be allowed to teach classes on my own.i don't capitalize sentences on internet forums because i largely learned to type on word, which has a lovely autocorrect function to do that for me. if i had to use the shift key too frequently, i would be slowed down and frustrated.

[Jennings7 0]

ok. i usually defend my lack of capitalization with a line from an ee cummings poem, but i'm reasonably sure it'd be lost on you.enjoy taco bell. i recommend the grilled stuft burrito.

I quoted your first post on this subject before you decided to edit it into this one. Nothing you say will be lost on me. I've been drinking all day while watching football, but I'm still fairly sure I would destroy you in most conversations/arguements/poker games...Bring it on if you want to insult my intelligence. I already have one advantage, my shift key isn't broken.

[checkymcfold 0]

I quoted your first post on this subject before you decided to edit it into this one. Nothing you say will be lost on me. I've been drinking all day while watching football, but I'm still fairly sure I would destroy you in most conversations/arguements/poker games...Bring it on if you want to insult my intelligence. I already have one advantage, my shift key isn't broken.

ok, fire away, kiddo. i'm very much unamused by talking to you, though. at least scram is capable of substantive argument alongside an overextended aesthetic critique.

[onlyme386 0]

I quoted your first post on this subject before you decided to edit it into this one. Nothing you say will be lost on me. I've been drinking all day while watching football, but I'm still fairly sure I would destroy you in most conversations/arguements/poker games...Bring it on if you want to insult my intelligence. I already have one advantage, my shift key isn't broken.

HU4RLLLLLLLZZZZ 1 TIME PLEASE

[checkymcfold 0]

HU4RLLLLLLLZZZZ 1 TIME PLEASE

i don't need another 5 bucks

[speedz99 145]

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.

I give it to scram except for when LLY gets involved. He's the only one around here that can constantly beat scram in serious debates...well I can too, but only because I only try once in a long while when I know I'm right. Otherwise I try to stay out of the way.

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?

Said the guy who claims not to believe in evolution on any scale.

[Loismustdie 0]

It most surely is influenced by genetics (dictated is probably too strong a word), as pretty much everything is. The problem is that it's next to impossible to determine what someone's potential would have been given different experiences. The fact that you cannot teach an adult certain things is not evidence that they were never able to learn it. Language is the most obvious example of this; after a certain age its next to impossible to learn how to pronounce foreign phonemes, but before a certain age its relatively easy for everyone to learn.

I don't have a problem with that. It's next to impossible to prove God yet that doesn't stop people from believing. There are plenty of things that we cannot prove that we buy into just on the basis of simple observation. If you have X, and they are a part of Y, but a larger portion of X is substantially of lesser smarts than Y, that seems to be pretty self explanatory. There could be a million factors, and if we can identify those factors than they can be quantified, correct? That being said, I doubt anyone really wants to do that. Sometimes, maybe it's best to not know. I mean, think about it. What if we did all of the correct scientific steps to prove Scrams point, and he was right? What do you tell people? How do you handle that? Do you stay the same course or do you veer a little bit and change how we do things? I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter- ultimately intelligence should not dictate basic freedoms. Mentally handicapped people are of lesser intelligence, that doesn't make them any less a person, a soul, a being worthy of recognition as a beautiful rendition of creation/evolution. That being said, no one would kick you in the nuts for observing that someone is mentally handicapped, and I believe that is all Scram has really done- made an observation that maybe genetically black people may be inferior. Not that I can talk- I may be the dumbest person to pass the Series 7 in history. I just retain knowledge well on a short term basis.

[Loismustdie 0]

I give it to scram except for when LLY gets involved. He's the only one around here that can constantly beat scram in serious debates...well I can too, but only because I only try once in a long while when I know I'm right. Otherwise I try to stay out of the way.Said the guy who claims not to believe in evolution on any scale.

Actually, I don't believe that at all. Evolution has obviously occurred. Where did you get that?

[speedz99 145]

made an observation that maybe genetically black people may be inferior.

This isn't what he said...I doubt he'd agree with it (maybe I'm wrong). Raw intelligence isn't the only factor in what may make a certain race inferior to all others.

[scram 1]

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.

Bobby Fischers father was a world class physicist who happened to have a 99.999999% percentile gift for spatial reasons. Think it was just a big co-ink-e-dink?

[speedz99 145]

Actually, I don't believe that at all. Evolution has obviously occurred. Where did you get that?

Oh, sorry. I thought you were a firm believer in Creationism.

[scram 1]

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.

I would disagree with that.If he decided to play cards and apply his gifts to that, it would translate equally and neither you or I would beat him over the long term (of course, Chess and cards rely on two different skill sets, so maybe not, but I think you get the position I'm maintaining)

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?

No. There isn't any question that there are enormously valid criticisms about standardized testing (although I must admit, a 30 point difference on an IQ test is very extreme). If one day Negroes were scoring genius and the next, they were scoring as being marginally retarded, then we could examine that a bit closer. As things stand, the results are fairly consistent (trending towards marginally retarded), even if we disregard the extremes.

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?

It actually goes towards proving my point.

[checkymcfold 0]

I would disagree with that.If he decided to play cards and apply his gifts to that, it would translate equally and neither you or I would beat him over the long term (of course, Chess and cards rely on two different skill sets, so maybe not, but I think you get the position I'm maintaining)

i do. i think, anyway. i'd argue, though, that a high level of skill in poker requires a level of well-thought-out randomization that isn't present in a game of chess (which would be a different sort of mental capacity), but i don't know much about chess. could be wrong about that. in any case, i'm not sure that any reliable data exists or could be produced that would be capable of mediating this kind of debate. agree to disagree on this one, then, maybe.

No. There isn't any question that there are enormously valid criticisms about standardized testing (although I must admit, a 30 point difference is very extreme). If one day Negroes were scoring genius and the next, they were scoring as being marginally retarded, then we could examine that a bit closer. As things stand, the results are fairly consistent, even if we disregard the extremes.

then, and this is where i was going all along, how do we quantify intelligence, and what value would such quantification hold? if we are verging on something like what vbnautilus was talking about before--a brain scan of some sort that was able to correlate brain activity with one's ability to reason in certain contexts--then i'd be more satisfied with the claims you're making about sustained intelligence across generations of genetically similar people. not completely, as i'm going to argue in a sec, but more so, i guess.

It actually goes towards proving my point.

i thought you'd say that, but here's what i was getting at: my parents, my grandparents, and thus my genetic code, point to a life of gas station workers, steel factory workers, and crane operators with my mother and her adopted sister as the only two outliers. i'm sure you're not arguing that distancing oneself from one's genetics is impossible, but coming up in the background that i did, most of the examples of "smart kids" in my area would be oddities in your Grand Unified Theory of intelligence. there comes a point in data analysis where you have to stop viewing consistent anomalies as anomalies and adjust your overriding theory to fit the data. and even if those anomalies didn't exist, i'd argue that you and i are basically offering different interpretations of the same data set. you say that sustained academic performance across generations is largely due to genetics, and i say that that same phenomenon is largely due to the likelihood that one will find him/herself in the same financial situation as one's parents. i keep coming back to leavitt's work, i know, but i never really thought about this stuff that much until i encountered it. his conclusion is (at least in simplified terms) that the statistical data is so aligned in all three of these variables that you can't really negotiate what is causing what, and i'm inclined to agree with him. my present concern isn't to prove you wrong, per se, but rather to illustrate that the situation is a lot more complicated than you're presenting it. this is important in my book, as history has taught us that it's fairly easy to make the leap from associating a person's (mental) worth with his or her genetic code to atrocities like genocide and eugenics. as such, i think complicating theories like the ones you've presented is a pretty important enterprise. (and no, i'm not calling you hitler, but i think a less intelligent--ha--person than yourself could easily take your theories in that direction, and that would be icky.)

[speedz99 145]

lots of impressive stuff

It really is a shame that you don't capitalize anything. I feel like I've seen that and skipped over many of your posts in the past because I assumed you were an idiot. Obviously I was wrong...but I still think I made a reasonable assumption.

[scram 1]

It really is a shame that you don't capitalize anything. I feel like I've seen that and skipped over many of your posts in the past because I assumed you were an idiot. Obviously I was wrong...but I still think I made a reasonable assumption.

LOL.**** you and your banana-nosed Hebrew "lets be buddies" cliquing whenever debates like this occur.Maybe you might want to step up and show what a "great debater" you are rather than just dildoing the asses of anyone who disagrees with me using your Shilock nose.

[checkymcfold 0]

It really is a shame that you don't capitalize anything. I feel like I've seen that and skipped over many of your posts in the past because I assumed you were an idiot. Obviously I was wrong...but I still think I made a reasonable assumption.

haha, it's cuz i misspelled sacrilegious, isn't it?as for appearing to be an idiot, i probably do that sometimes, but it's not a major concern of mine. i'm hardly going to work to overcome my typing-related shortcomings just to appear smarter on teh internetz. not worth it.

[scram 1]

i thought you'd say that, but here's what i was getting at: my parents, my grandparents, and thus my genetic code, point to a life of gas station workers, steel factory workers, and crane operators with my mother and her adopted sister as the only two outliers. i'm sure you're not arguing that distancing oneself from one's genetics is impossible, but coming up in the background that i did, most of the examples of "smart kids" in my area would be oddities in your Grand Unified Theory of intelligence. there comes a point in data analysis where you have to stop viewing consistent anomalies as anomalies and adjust your overriding theory to fit the data. and even if those anomalies didn't exist, i'd argue that you and i are basically offering different interpretations of the same data set. you say that sustained academic performance across generations is largely due to genetics, and i say that that same phenomenon is largely due to the likelihood that one will find him/herself in the same financial situation as one's parents.

Wow.Garbage.You spent a large portion of this discussion debating the fact that intelligence is all about environment, economics, etc, then accidentally brought up the fact that you yourself were a complete divergence from this- then, WHOOPS! started to backpedal and rationalize with gems like this.

there comes a point in data analysis where you have to stop viewing consistent anomalies as anomalies and adjust your overriding theory to fit the data. and even if those anomalies didn't exist, i'd argue that you and i are basically offering different interpretations of the same data set. you say that sustained academic performance across generations is largely due to genetics, and i say that that same phenomenon is largely due to the likelihood that one will find him/herself in the same financial situation as one's parents.

... which, aside from being almost entirely nonsensical, assumes things like associations between intelligence and finances, even though you (and I, and every other kid who came from a shitty background but was brighter than his surroundings might suggest) are screaming examples to the contrary.I maintain that genetics dictate intelligence, which in turn dictate achievement (collective or otherwise).