It now seems James Watson was right.
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
de.org.mensa only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

de.org.mensa Profile…
 Up
It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: Joe
Date: Nov 18, 2007 16:26

Read the two stories at http://muvy.org
22 Comments
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Date: Nov 18, 2007 17:47

"Joe" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Read the two stories at http://muvy.org

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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Nov 18, 2007 21:44

On Nov 18, 5:47 pm, "Phil Holman" wrote:
> "Joe" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Read the two stories athttp://muvy.org
>
> 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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: Bret 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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: tg
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
>
>>news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Read the two stories athttp://muvy.org
>
>> 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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: nonsense
Date: Nov 19, 2007 13:32

Phil Holman wrote:
> "Joe" yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>Read the two stories at http://muvy.org
> 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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Date: Nov 19, 2007 16:20

"nonsense" unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:4f838$474200f2$49e5d82$29493@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "Joe" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>Read the two stories at http://muvy.org
>
>> 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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: nonsense
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:
>>
>>
>>>"Joe" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>Read the two stories at http://muvy.org
>>
>>>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
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Nov 20, 2007 20:22

On Nov 19, 3:50 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>>>news:3757cd89-a3dc-4a03-9f71-e59a2ed85139@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> Read the two stories athttp://muvy.org
>
>>> 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 ...
Show full article (2.96Kb)
no comments
Re: It now seems James Watson was right.         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Nov 22, 2007 13:13

NATURE VIA NURTURE - genes, experience, and what makes us human
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006000679X/qid=1093711993/

- INTELLIGENCE

Despite the sweeping successes of twin studies, a few features of
human behavior prove to be less heritable. The sense of humor shows
low heritability: adopted siblings seem to have quite similar senses
of humor, while separated twins have rather different ones. People's
food preferences seem to be barely heritable-you get your food
preferences from your early experience, not your genes (so do rats).
Social and political attitudes show a strong influence from the shared
environment-liberal or conservative parents seem to be able to pass on
their preferences to their children. Religious affiliation, too, is
passed on culturally, rather than genetically, though not religious
fervor.

What about intelligence? The debate about the heritability of IQ has
been scarred by controversy since its inception. The first IQ tests
were crude and culturally biased. In the 1920s, convinced that
intelligence...
Show full article (25.98Kb)
no comments
1 2 3