BigBallinStalin wrote:we're not created equally.
No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!
"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.
Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:we're not created equally.
mrswdk wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Eugenics and social Darwinism are not at all the same thing, though they are related, so that comparison is invalid. The valid comparison is that the idea of Nazism, the idea that one race was superior to the other, that the IDEAS were superior.. that was roundly defeated.
I took a guess that you meant eugenics seeing as 'Social Darwinism' means nothing other than that that the law of natural selection applies to humans just as it applies to other animals.
The Nazis lost the war therefore everything they thought was wrong?
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.
Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.
I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)
In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.
Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.
If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.
I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.
tzor wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:we're not created equally.
No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!
"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.
Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.
I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)
In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.
Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.
If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.
I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.
You have either misunderstood me, misunderstood what your professor is saying, or your professor is not really looking at all the research on the matter. I am not wrong on this.
BigBallinStalin wrote:tzor wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:we're not created equally.
No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!
"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.
Good luck getting shickingbrits to clarify his stance.
Metsfanmax wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.
Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.
I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)
In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.
Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.
If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.
I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.
You have either misunderstood me, misunderstood what your professor is saying, or your professor is not really looking at all the research on the matter. I am not wrong on this.
Well, you made a point that was irrelevant to his point. You said that IQ is not the only important measure of intelligence -- likely true. That doesn't respond to his claim that IQ is largely genetic. The only relevant part of the post you said is that "tests can err."
shickingbrits wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:tzor wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:we're not created equally.
No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!
"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.
Good luck getting shickingbrits to clarify his stance.
You have life, I have life. Seems pretty equal.
PLAYER57832 wrote:My first point was that IQ is actually a LOT more flexible than people think... but a true expert in the areas, which BBS professor apparently is, would know that. Also, BBS said "largely".
PLAYER57832 wrote:Eugenics, basically directed human breeding and selection was popular right up until about WWII. Hitler did illustrate one of the worst possibilities of that idea, but there were other problems. The most basic one is that humans just are not truly capable of judging what "fitness" is in a long term sense. We tend toward superficialities.
Metsfanmax wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:My first point was that IQ is actually a LOT more flexible than people think... but a true expert in the areas, which BBS professor apparently is, would know that. Also, BBS said "largely".
Isn't it the case that for the people who have the ability to most change their IQ, that flexibility is also genetically determined?
AndyDufresne wrote:I prefer DQ over IQ.
--Andy
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
Neoteny wrote:Wait. How the f*ck does one test a baby's IQ?
And what does genetic product even mean in this context?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:Wait. How the f*ck does one test a baby's IQ?
And what does genetic product even mean in this context?
Gimme your baby. I'll test its IQ...
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:To where shall I mail her?
Neoteny wrote:If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?
Baby, you can trust me.
AndyDufresne wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Neoteny wrote:If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?
Baby, you can trust me.
Babe, you can trust in me.
--Andy
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:I suppose I mostly just take issue with the idea that IQ is a reasonable measure of genetic output. If I had to guess, (which I actually do have to do, since I apparently can't be fucked to read more than a paragraph these days), PLAYER probably has the same qualm. Everybody is going to run on some sort of personal bell curve, sure. How much daddy's semen affects where that curve falls on the x-axis seems a little indefinite to me. If the genetics can't be done with a Punnett square by a Kappa Sigma on a Friday morning, I really have difficulty agreeing that a trait is "largely genetic." Testing babies' IQ would definitely help with that though. If you've got salary space under that grant, I'll happily administer progressive matrices to infants.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users