 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: JoeJoe Date: Nov 18, 2007 16:26
|
| |
|
| | 24 Comments |
|
|
Date: Nov 18, 2007 17:47
James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
difference?
It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
questionable conclusion.
It's a fact that the differences "within" the white and black
populations are greater than the difference "between" the two
populations.
Some people have a problem with being right rather than understanding a
greater need for political inactivity.
One last thing; did the fox count the chickens?
Phil H
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Nov 18, 2007 21:44
On Nov 18, 5:47 pm, "Phil Holman" wrote:>
> James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
> difference?
> It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
> genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
> accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
> Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
> disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
> questionable conclusion.
>
> It's a fact that the differences "within" the white and black
> populations are greater than the difference "between" the two
> populations.
> Some people have a problem with being right rather than understanding a ...
|
| Show full article (2.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Nov 18, 2007 23:34
Being great when you are young doesn't necessarily imply you will be
great when you are old.
A lot of people claim that Nietzsche should be discredited because he
went insane.
Everything and everyone stands on it's own merits.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Nov 19, 2007 03:50
On Nov 19, 12:44 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 18, 5:47 pm, "Phil Holman" wrote:
>
>
>>> "Joe" yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>
>
>> James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
>> difference?
>> It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
>> genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
>> accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
>> Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
>> disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
>> questionable conclusion.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: toolytooly Date: Nov 19, 2007 04:49
"Phil Holman" wrote in message
news:CvednaZ7Y-S0dt3anZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@comcast.com...>
> James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
> difference?
> It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
> genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
> accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
> Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
> disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
> questionable conclusion.
>
> It's a fact that the differences "within" the white and black populations
> are greater than the difference "between" the two populations.
> Some people have a problem with being right rather than understanding a
> greater need for political inactivity. ...
|
| Show full article (1.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Nov 19, 2007 06:50
> the vast, and I mean 'vast', commitment of
> human social direction we have now ventured upon...all based upon reason
It's not genetic but the most irrational people here on newsgroups,
fundies, looneytarians gun nuts and other rightards are 99%% white.
It's rare to hear such nonsense coming from a person of color.
Diversity is the _only_ thing that might save us.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: nonsensenonsense Date: Nov 19, 2007 13:32
Phil Holman wrote:
> James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
> difference?
> It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
> genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
> accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
> Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
> disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
> questionable conclusion.
But regardless, we don't know for certain what it is
that underlies the differences in intelligence. It might
very well vary from case to case.
> It's a fact that the differences "within" the white and black
> populations are greater than the difference "between" the two
> populations.
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Nov 19, 2007 16:20
"nonsense" unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:4f838$474200f2$49e5d82$29493@DIALUPUSA.NET...> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>
>
>> James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
>> difference?
>> It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
>> genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
>> accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
>> Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
>> disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
>> questionable conclusion.
>
> But regardless, we don't know for certain what it is
> that underlies the differences in intelligence. It might ...
|
| Show full article (2.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: nonsensenonsense Date: Nov 19, 2007 18:56
Phil Holman wrote:
> "nonsense" unsettled.com> wrote in message
> news:4f838$474200f2$49e5d82$29493@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> >>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>James Watson was right about what specifically; that there is a
>>>difference?
>>>It's highly unlikely that what we define as intelligence is 100%%
>>>genetically determined and any measured difference could be largely
>>>accounted for by nurture. This is genetics 101 and combined with
>>>Statistics 101 (correlation does not imply causation), leaves me
>>>disappointed to see someone this accomplished drawing (IMO) a very
>>>questionable conclusion. ...
|
| Show full article (3.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
