http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnuRRWZxSE
;D
Printable View
They should just get together, slap and scratch each other fiercely, and get it over with. That being said, Molyneux has some strange views about things. Proof that nowadays it doesn't take much to become a social media celebrity.
He has a lot of sensible and interest views. The only thing that loses me is the extremism of believing freemarkets solve everything. They obviously do not, but neither does excessive government. You need to keep it trim, but also accept that some of it needs to exist. I would only axe half of all civil servants.
Also, would I guess that Molyneux has the potential to spin and twist? Well, isn't that what every outlet is doing these days? He has his agenda. It is one reason why trust in the media is at record lows. Journalists today seem to lack integrity and they will write anything to keep their jobs and pay off the mortgage. On the whole you have to consider the merits and limitations of anyone you listen to. In saying that though, I do like Molyneux some of what Molyneux says and he doesn't advertise pills like CNN to make his revenue so that is cool. He lives and dies by his content and people choosing to support it.
Do you actively search for videos to try and validate your own cynicism, Beanz? You posting a video to make a point and then adding no commentary is no different to the kind of thing Brock was getting warned about with the Mark Dice videos. you should say something. Everyone to you is a snake oil salesman or a shill, but it is very easy to say that. You can take something anyone says and crucify them, but it isn't a full reflection of who they are.
Miles it is a brilliant response to the kind of shallow narcissistic rubbish that passes for insight nowadays. Like Peterson he is the Emperor with no clothes, only in this case with added pathological bitterness. He is still shaming people into paying him because he can't get a real job. Like him you have become incredibly lazy intellectually when it comes to posting here. Why bring up CNN? You know I don't watch it but it makes your non argument seem worthy. No mention of Infowars and their utterly con job supplements because you have no consistency. Comparing it to Brockton spamming when again it is a false analogy. I didn't comment last night because it was 1:30 am and I had just finished working before going to bed. Not because I am spamming the forum with screaming hate fuelled click bait.
I guess this was on your mind at 1:30am? :-\
Who is he shaming into paying him? Don't all media and information outlets need revenue to produce their work? It certainly beats having BBC world tell us we have to fly with Emirates. Or have CNN tell us to pop pills. This is where I find it strange how bitter you are about Infowars. I don't see you haranguing the 'mainstream' outlets for their agendas or how they make their money. Alex Jones sells vitamins for crying out loud. Vitamins! Molyneux relies on donations. Donations!
I am not being intellectually lazy as I am not trying to be intellectual. These are simple observations. You have posted a number of threads without comment lately and fair enough if you want to do that, but don't pretend it isn't Brock esque to post videos with very little comment. Maybe Brock posts his videos at 1:30am. I have no idea!
You can accuse Molyneux and Peterson of being naked all you like, but I don't think you have even read An Antidote to Chaos. Asides from not liking post modernism, I really haven't worked out your objection to Peterson. And Molyneux has clearly worked and done very well for himself whence being able to take the time and develop his hobby horse. To sustain it he needs to be paid and I think most of us expect to be paid when we do some work or provide some kind of service.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-TiETMc4YQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I really do not see the problem. He is not forcing anybody to do anything. I mean, you could download an album for free, but you as someone who respects artists would like the band to be paid, right? If you don't want to listen to Molyneux you can just change the channel and if you don't like what he says you don't have to pay anything. What am I missing here? I am not sure I get it.
He is a cult leader. Trust me I know what they look like and how they work. I am in many ways at heart a punk so no I am not going to pretend that the old school model of bands being paid is in any way useful or comparable to Molyneux and his guff in any way. He is advocating people isolating themselves from their biological family in order to control them but the main point is that is a massive fake and yet he is being held up as an expert in things he has no clue about. It corrupts debate. It's not science or ethics or philosophy it's guff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Molyneux really is a bit of a charlatan. I remember him on a show (Dave Rubin) claiming something like "White kids adopted by poor black families tend to display a high IQ, while black kids adopted into white middle-class families still score low on IQ tests".
Ok. One possibility is that there was actually a study made on hundreds of kids that produced these startling results —don't ask me how or why or where all this kid-switching happened on a national level (USA? Canada? Kazakhstan? French Riviera?).
And a second possibility is that he pulled it out of his arse.
A Charlatan and a sociopath. Sam Harris once mentioned he would notice a special gleam in Molyneux' eye whenever he got talking about all these racial issues.
The problem with Molyneux and many like him is that in this age of YouTube and social media, he has an easy platform from which to launch his bigotry and general ignorance, dressed up in some sort of pseudo-intelligence. Far too many people hang on the words of these opportunistic, opinionated people.... like sheep being led to the brain-washing machine. Not picking on Molyneux exclusively, or branding everything he has to say as wrong. Just raising the flag that too many people out there use these YouTube sermons as gospel, displacing their own thoughts on many matters. Before YouTube and social media, people were forced to come to their own conclusions, based on their own experiences, their own upbringing. People today, in general, like to spew multi-syllable words, in a comical effort to impress. They'll utter lots of words, but when that is condensed into meaning, it shrinks to 1% its original content. Which is why some of these extensive YouTube soliloquies are far too tedious and mind-numbing to listen to for more than a couple of minutes. Society is changing... though not necessarily for the better.
What bigotry, Tito? As long as you can support what you are saying then I struggle to understand the meanings of terms like racist or misogynist etc. If you disagree then cite why you disagree, but I hate it when people counter an argument with 'misogynist' as a) they have no counter argument and b) nust want to shut you down. This is where Beanz is such a conformist and stereotype. Does it all the time and in every thread. At least Molyneux can make a case and you can disagree all you like as long as you have the information to counter with. For instance there is a lot of information about the harmful effects of single parenting. Yet typically the only counter you get is 'You don't like women....misogynist'. It is asinine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.
Look Tito, the local population here has an IQ higher than that of my own country. This is just a fact. There might be different arguments surrounding how and why, but it is a fact and I don't really consider it off on the wrong foot or anything like that. Look at the top 10 highest IQ countries and you see a pattern and it is what it is. You can watch the presentation on single mothers and then do your own research, it is generally accepted, though not absolute to any degree of course, that children raised with one parent will have life a lot harder than life raised in a two parent household. I really cannot be bothered with cries or racism or misogyny when it comes to such things. I am not offended by it in the slightest and I say that as someone from a country that is middling around 100 for IQ and has an epidemic of single motherhood. I don't understand the need to be upset by it. I find it much more constructive to just accept the reality and then ask 'What can we do to improve things?' and when you suggest people should have less casual sex and consider their partners very carefully you are still painted as being a very naughty boy. It is very twisted how Beanz goes about things in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.
It is good to see that you know how to have a conversation and we can agree on some things and disagree on others and that's all fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfLook Tito, the local population here has an IQ higher than that of my own country. This is just a fact. There might be different arguments surrounding how and why, but it is a fact and I don't really consider it off on the wrong foot or anything like that. Look at the top 10 highest IQ countries and you see a pattern and it is what it is. You can watch the presentation on single mothers and then do your own research, it is generally accepted, though not absolute to any degree of course, that children raised with one parent will have life a lot harder than life raised in a two parent household. I really cannot be bothered with cries or racism or misogyny when it comes to such things. I am not offended by it in the slightest and I say that as someone from a country that is middling around 100 for IQ and has an epidemic of single motherhood. I don't understand the need to be upset by it. I find it much more constructive to just accept the reality and then ask 'What can we do to improve things?' and when you suggest people should have less casual sex and consider their partners very carefully you are still painted as being a very naughty boy. It is very twisted how Beanz goes about things in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.
It is good to see that you know how to have a conversation and we can agree on some things and disagree on others and that's all fair enough.
Absolutely. It's the only way to argue. ;D
But IMO, single motherhood, and claims about IQ's by race or ethnicity are two completely different things. On single motherhood I agree. Still.... I'll bet we've all known shining exceptions to the rule, where a single mother has done her damnest and has raised wonderful, well-adjusted kids. It's not the norm, mind you... but there are exceptions. Still, I believe a single mother is starting off with two strikes, if you will (sorry for the baseball analogy). It's a problem that by all means should be addressed, as it's the root cause of a lot of ills in society. On IQ, it gets stickier. To me, IQ is simply genetics. The same reason why some kids are adept at sports and some aren't. Why some have a musical talent since birth. Why still others are born with a paint brush in their hands. Genetics. More than one U.S. celebrity has gotten in trouble trying to explain why blacks aren't good swimmers..... or why women aren't good golfers. They may have good intentions... but they invariably get in trouble for their generalizations. No country, race, or ethnic group has a monopoly on IQ. Life circumstances force people into different cubbyholes in life.... but it isn't because they're black, Asian, white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.
They are very different issues for sure. One can be controlled, but the other, like you say, is likely mostly genetic. Like I say, though I have no qualms about differences between races and there will always be exceptions. You are going to get stupid Asian people and highly intelligent black people too of course. However, I guess my point is that I don't see how Molyneux is scientifically wrong on these issues. I hear a lot of words against Molyneux from Beanz and how much he knows about cults because apparently he was 'raised in a cult', but I don't actually see many arguments to tell anyone how or why Molyneux is wrong. I have highlighted one clear example of how I think Molyneux is wrong and that is in my belief that freemarkets are not always a solution and I could illustrate the UK property market of today as a prime example of how this hasn't worked, but all I see is 'He asks for donations, he has twisted words, he leads a cult' and this is rather bankrupt stuff.
Ok so you don't see how Molyneux is scientifically wrong on issues of race, but I on the other hand haven't seen any scientific evidence on his part to back up his outlandish claims. It so happens National Geographic came out with an issue devoted entirely to race this month. Now like any other publication, NG is given to slanted coverage on some issues.... but they also can't be merely dismissed on every topic. This particular issue is quite good, as it explores the notion of race from different angles. Part of the message is that it is us human beings who are too willing to cubbyhole ourselves into different groups, or "races". The reality is that nowadays the vast majority of people have quite a mix of ethnicities in their DNA. Pure breeds are for dogs. Most of us can claim heritage characteristics from several origins. As time goes by, this becomes even more pronounced. So to hear IQ claims based on race or ethnicity sounds hollow to me.
Molyneux is opinionated. The only difference between him and most of us is that he's gone through the trouble of setting up and maintaining a YouTube platform. He's neither the world's most educated person, nor the most knowledgeable on many of the topics of which he speaks. Again, I'm not saying he's wrong about everything..... only that too many people substitute listening (and watching) the Molyneux's of the cyber world for their own original thoughts and ideas. That, my friend, is dangerous.
I object to that as the highest IQ nations in the world tend to be very homogeneous societies. Sure there are different tribal elements at work within those societies and there is overlap, but it seems pretty clear that East Asian nations produce the most intelligent people along with also the Ashkenazi Jews too who produce very high IQ results.
You are completely entitled to your opinion, of course. However, there are plenty of articles out there by very intelligent people that point out the flaws in IQ tests, their design, their administration, and their interpretation..... and dismiss the notion that IQ is related to race, ethnicity, or any such factors. So your assertions sound rather wild to me. I've read your broad generalizations for some time now, and usually I don't comment. But I couldn't be more in disagreement with them. There are many, many factors that come into play and should not be ignored when attempting to pigeonhole races and ethnicities into IQ categories. All this does is promote bigotry, separatism, general resentment between groups of people. In fact it seems sort of medieval, given the globalization we've experienced across society in the past couple of decades. You speak of "scientific proof", yet have never once provided a shred of scientific evidence to prove these sweeping generalizations. Yet I'm positive that there are true scientists out there, much better prepared than you or I, who would debunk these myths in a New York minute.
It isn't especially difficult to find evidence. A very easy search throws up this pdf which reviews a lot of the literature on this particular topic. I have only skimmed it myself as I am too busy, but will probably read the complete thing this weekend as it does look very interesting. I understand that some people might try to use the data for bigoted purposes, but at the end of the day, all I care about is if something is true or not. It serves no greater purpose to stick ones head in the sand and pretend that something does not exist because it might be divisive. That is where I struggle with political correctness. I don't think we should be politically correct when it comes to science. I think it is also very important when you consider how we are opening borders to pretty much everyone. The reality is that you are going to end up with problems if you are not going to be realistic about cultural and intelligence differentials. I think the ignorance of such evidence is partly what is leading to Europe having such a murky time of it today. This is one area where I think Molyneux is quite brave and I think others like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have referenced similar things.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfreds...sen30years.pdf
Also, I had no idea about this, but apparently the research on race and IQ has led to problems for Asian students. At Harvard Asian students have to meet higher criteria than white people to get onto courses. That's pretty astonishing. In some ways we are now discriminating against intelligence based upon race. That's what I find wrong.
Before you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote itQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.
Peterson, Murray, Molyneaux, Harris are of course in love with the idea that they got their privileged position thru merit but it is the same pseudo science used to justify slavery.
https://medium.com/@justinward/debun...n-56e4192b39f0
How does any of that refute the research which they are citing? Tito said there were no studies shown and you can read about numerous studies in the first few pages of that article. Your last post in this thread is utterly unhinged.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanzBefore you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote itQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.
Alright, well if IQ is not at least partially genetic then can anyone explain the IQ's of Ashkenazi Jews? And I do not bring them up for any other reason than the fact that they are a small population but have extremely high IQ's (for the most part). I am sure you could find an Ashkenazi Jew who is an idiot, but you also wouldn't have to search very far to find one who is brilliant.
It's a nature vs nurture issue at the core of it and you can find people on both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfHow does any of that refute the research which they are citing? Tito said there were no studies shown and you can read about numerous studies in the first few pages of that article. Your last post in this thread is utterly unhinged.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanzBefore you read it Tito you might want to know something about the guys who wrote itQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Who are these two men? J. Philippe Rushton is the head of America's most dedicated subsidizer and promoter of eugenic research, the Pioneer Fund. Arthur Jensen has spent the last 40 years arguing against "compensatory education," or the idea that programs like Head Start have any efficacy in alleviating black underachievement. (Think about it: Jensen began claiming that black mental inferiority was intractable a mere five years after the Civil Rights Act, four years after the Voting Rights Act, and four years after Head Start was created.) Since the late '60s—i.e., since the heyday of civil rights and the inception of such "compensatory education" programs as Head Start—blacks have made huge gains vis-à-vis whites on a wide range of standardized tests. For obvious reasons, Rushton and Jensen refuse to acknowledge these gains.
I don't think I said there were no studies. What I said was that Molyneux himself hadn't presented any hard, scientific evidence to back up his outlandish claims. "Hard, scientific evidence" is a phrase thrown around too loosely by many who don't know the meaning or scope of the phrase, so I raise that caution flag right off the bat. I also said there were numerous articles out there, well written and presented by people who have obviously done their research, which put into doubt the very essence of the design, implementation, and interpretation of these IQ tests, particularly across different cultures and ethnicities. Invariably, as Beanz points out, many of the people who push this agenda do so with ulterior motives that have little to do with science, and everything to do with furthering their own beliefs of superiority and feelings of resentment and hatred. It's been my experience throughout life that you can justify just about anything in the name of "science" with a little creativity, persuasiveness, and a knowledge on how to jumble up and play with statistics.
The majority of the science is overwhelmingly on the side of nurture. Wade, Murray, Peterson, Molyneux it is not surprise that they have all appeared on each others shows and bought into an idea that justifies their own political stance. I don't know if you or Miles would ever be able to bring yourself to contemplate it but please at least consider this.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
For the people mentioned above it is very convenient to latch onto an idea that would seemingly justify their own beliefs that social inequality and social outcomes are nothing to do with nurture or circumstance, and are really just a natural outcome dictated by genetic apptitude and difference. They wholeheartedly want to believe that human equality is a fairy tale made up by wishy washy liberals. It means they can present themselves as brave outsiders with the moral and scientific integrity to face up to difficult facts. It means they can brand their opponents as IQ deniers and lend credence to their own wacky pseudo science self help babble.
Science does not back them up. Their is no identifiable gene for intelligence and things like the Ashkenazi question are quite simply answered by culture. Even among Sephardic Jews like my Grandparents and their ancestors , literacy is highly prized and important. Not just religious literature but the study and practice of music at a much higher level than many other populations at the time all help to increase the ability to complete IQ test well. Remember that all populations get better at IQ tests with just simple training within decades which would never work on a genetic level.
Even the studies carried out by racists seeking confirmation of their race/IQ link claim have returned difficult answers for them. When they studied identical twins those adopted by families form different social classes often had a 29 point IQ difference.The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices. ( not Lyle and Miles the Peterson, Molyneux crew etc)
"The genetic claim is not only untrue it is indicative of people who want to find anything to justify their own prejudices."
Well if everyone has the very same ability to grow their minds and obtain high IQ's then what is stopping other people from achieving higher IQ's? The Dutch are quite tall, why are the Japanese allowing the Dutch to out height them....same kind of reasoning on display.
Nurture is a PART, Nature is a PART the question is "To what extent?"
Even height and other physiology can be linked to the environment that people live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Physical differences..... black vs white..... tall vs short..... straight hair vs curly hair...... round eyes vs slanted eyes..... even facial contours and other characteristics, have been developed over ages and ages of evolution, and most likely in answer to necessities borne from living environments. Native cultures at high altitudes develop the ability to breathe and perform with less oxygen than those at coastal regions. To stretch that to the IQ realm is pushing an agenda, IMO. The "so-called" scientific evidence mentioned so many times by those who wish badly to push that agenda is nothing more than ill-conceived conclusions from "studies" based on flawed premises and sometimes manipulated statistics. But this is nothing new, really. The same thing applies to other issues where it suits particular interests to "prove" something, regardless of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
So let's for a minute entertain the ridiculous notion that somehow IQ is linked to race and/or ethnicities. Why is it that in this age of unbridled scientific discoveries and advances..... why is it that we haven't found the magic DNA key to this disparity in intelligence between races? Not regurgitated and/or manipulated stats. Not snakeoil salesmen pitches like the Molyneux's of the world. Clear and unadulterated fact. Where is it?
Frankly, it's a shame that in the 21st century, we're still pushing such absurd agendas.
Not at all because height and size are identifiable genetic components. There are not the same identifiable genes for intelligence. Japanese Culture, Korean culture, Asian Culture is all geared towards activities and practices that bode well for IQ tests. IQ test are not even the unbiased tests they present themselves as. This is why IQ's fluctuate so much among people with very similar genetics. Growing their IQ' s makes no sense, if you think it is genetic that would take many, many, many, many generations to show up. The fact that people can with practice increase their own score again and again in their life time suggest that there is no racial component and that nurture/education etc are THE determining factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
The dangerous part about this IQ/race agenda is that is creates a lazy fallback position for arguments where society promotes and perpetuates divisions based on race and ethnicities. It's easier to defend discriminatory laws and stances by citing "scientific studies" about IQ inequality between races and ethnicities, than to attack the problems posed by those very laws and stances. This is not an issue to be taken lightly, as it feeds the portion of the population that wants to continue and widen these divisions. Nothing positive comes out of these claims, but rather resentment, anger and mistrust. In some cases it could even be a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Well.... I'm black to I'm supposed to be stupid. Or not good enough to attend such-and-such university." You can hardly blame blacks for founding their own colleges, an article of which appears in the same National Geographic issue I had mentioned earlier.
All of which reminds me of a favorite classic of mine........... ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLxU95cMVps
Like height and size, IQ also has identifiable genetic components.....Peer Reviewed links for your reading if you care to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanz
Genetic Variants Build a Smarter Brain
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/...-smarter-brain
Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...-you-do-school
Gene Network Effects on Brain Microstructure and Intellectual Performance Identified in 472 Twins
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/25/8732
If IQ was 100% determined by Nurture/Environment then you would be (and I am not accusing you of this at all) laying the blame for those races and ethnicities not achieving as high on IQ tests on the cultures they come from/were raised in and that is (and dear lord I hate to use the word) "problematic" because all cultures value education, all cultures value knowledge and to say "It's 100% nurture/environment" is saying Native American cultures don't value wisdom, education, Black cultures don't value wisdom, education, Hispanic and Latino cultures don't value wisdom education and I don't for 1 second believe that, and I believe that you are not inferring that but you're not meaning to imply it, but this is the crux of the trouble when discussing IQ along with race and ethnicity.
It's by no means an open and shut case either way.
Of course it's never as simple as anyone would have us believe. It's hard enough to see outside our own value systems and cultures without them influencing things and while the IQ test is supposed to do that it really can never be that which it hopes to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongLike height and size, IQ also has identifiable genetic components.....Peer Reviewed links for your reading if you care to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanz
Genetic Variants Build a Smarter Brain
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/...-smarter-brain
Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...-you-do-school
Gene Network Effects on Brain Microstructure and Intellectual Performance Identified in 472 Twins
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/25/8732
If IQ was 100% determined by Nurture/Environment then you would be (and I am not accusing you of this at all) laying the blame for those races and ethnicities not achieving as high on IQ tests on the cultures they come from/were raised in and that is (and dear lord I hate to use the word) "problematic" because all cultures value education, all cultures value knowledge and to say "It's 100% nurture/environment" is saying Native American cultures don't value wisdom, education, Black cultures don't value wisdom, education, Hispanic and Latino cultures don't value wisdom education and I don't for 1 second believe that, and I believe that you are not inferring that but you're not meaning to imply it, but this is the crux of the trouble when discussing IQ along with race and ethnicity.
It's by no means an open and shut case either way.
In terms of nurture I would like to beliebe it is more nuture than nature. However, we are a told different things by different evidence. My own experiences suggest there is better academic nurturing here than back home. Kids study very high level maths at a young age, learn English from the age of 5, and most kids are going to private academies. It is a very education driven society. By contrast the UK simply isn't driven in this regard and with dozens of languages in some schools you are going to struggle to get as many on the same page. I would like to believe it is all nurture, but the data seems to suggest this is not so.
Personally I don't mind either way. I am quite aware you are going to get smart and dumb people of any race and you take the person as an individual. I am quite aware that for every great mind like my own you are going to have a dozen plebs impregnating young women and smoking crack and they could be any color. Where I am from they are usually quite pasty looking with ferret like rodenty features.
The other day I heard a maths expert claim that something like 50-75% of the TEACHERS tested in the UK failed a general maths exam designed for 10-year-old kids in Singapore. That's how low standards have dropped in the UK.
The Maths that the kids are doing here is really difficult. I used to look at some of the homework kids were doing when I used to teach kids and it's really eye opening stuff. You are talking about really young kids. They are at it from a young age with maths, language, music, sciences, and martial arts. It is very impressive. Growing up I didn't really get any of that push to do anything and that's where I do think the kids here benefit from stable families that push and encourage them to do something. That's where I want to believe in nurture, but it would have to be genetic too. I guess in the UK you do get some of that in more middle class upbringings where parents want the right school and the house in the right location, but even then, you are not having kids go to private academies all over the place. You can be a 'real' teacher in the UK, but what does that really mean at the end of the day if they are failing like that? Actually out here the academy teachers tend to be better than public school teachers. I remember when I worked in a public school 2 of the English teachers couldn't speak English. They wouldn't make it in the private market where there is a lot more talent. It is one reason parents want the academy teaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I would bet that American teachers are even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster