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>
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>> What if our society changes, technologically and mechanically, so that
>> people with what are considered low IQ's now, turn out to have higher
>> IQs then?
>
>> The article said "Tests do show an IQ deficit,
>
> If that's what the article says, then that's all we need to realize
> that the author is an idiot. Sorry, Mensa people, but IQ isn't
> something that one is filled up with and so one can have a deficit.
>
Isn't IQ just a theory based upon observations of regularities? What
would lead you to believe it is or is not something filled up? The
criter used to establish a standard for determining just what IQ is
probably will change are are not yet set in stone. That observations
align with theories is just an nductive probability which can change.
> -tg
>
>
>
>> not just for Africans
>> relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians" but he
>> forgot to put in that a tribe in New Guinea, whose culture somehow
>> evolved the skills needed in the developed world as a consequence of
>> their unique tribal society, actually have the highest known IQ on
>> earth. I think that is what Nicholus Wade discuses in one of his
>> books. As you have said well, concerning statistics, the matter is not
>> really determinable yet and the jury is out, more discoveries could
>> turn all these ideas about intelligence on their head. Meanwhile this
>> important issue continues to be a means to the ends of other goals,
>> usually biased goals.
>
>
>>> One last thing; did the fox count the chickens?
>
>>> Phil H- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
