I love it when you ignore me

Must have been a fucking nightmare to have worn short pants until 21 ? eh, Jonesie ??

Did mommy and daddy also keep the hall light on for you at bed times ?

http://www.mybondingbabies.com/catalog/images/nice.JPG

no need to

he was in a co-sleeper

I love it when you ignore me

It's more like I haven't been feeling like my old self.

Why mate what's up ?

Krazy Kaju the exceptions to the rule you mentioned are way too common to just write off as exceptions to the rule.

They are exceptions to the rule.

The fact is a very, extremely, tiny, small minority of lower-class people 'make it' into the upper-middle/upper classes. Of course, I'm talking about 4th, 5th, etc. generational Americans, not immigrants or other groups of people that might have a problem of moving up socio-economic classes due to cultural reasons.

And the research shows that even a smaller minority of people born to below-average intelligent parents (IQ < 100) make it into the upper-middle/upper classes.

The fact is that you inherit about 80% of your intelligence from your parents(see the research I posted before). Also, IQ correlates strongly with socio-economic rank (we'll call this SER). People with low SER generally have low IQ. Likewise, people with low IQ are most likely in a low SER. On the other hand, high IQ people are most likely to be in a high SER.

This means that people born into low SER generally won't jump up into a high SER, unless, for whatever odd reason, their parents were rather intelligent but stayed low SER (two reasons I have already provided: discrimination back-in-the-day and cultural problems due to immigration).

So, in conclusion, stop shitting up this thread (dunno if this is possible) and actually post something informative.

http://wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html

From what I've seen, the correlation of IQ between twins reared apart usually varies between .5 and .8 (or between 50% and 80%).

The disagreement here is mainly due to how different researches view the mother's womb - what does the fact that monozygotic twins originate from the same egg mean? Some researches say nothing - in which case the IQ correlation is left at around the .8 range. Others, however, say that the fact that monozygotic twins, are, well, monozygotic, means that their IQ correlation is partly due to 'environment' in the mother - so these researchers lower the IQ heredibility to .5 from .8.

In either of these cases we can determine that:
You are born with a significant proportion of your intelligence already determined.
At least 50% of your intelligence is due to genes.
'Environment' cannot significantly improve your IQ over a long period of time (Weiberg & Scarr, link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study)).
Programs that target lower-acheiving children, therefore, are doomed to fail.
Am I saying that low acheiving students do not deserve the same educational opportunities that high acheiving students do? No, that isn't what I'm trying to say.

In the post that you responded to, I made two contentions:
That buying the supplies of all of America's schoolchildren would be too expensive and that money could be better spent.
That if you're born lower-class, you are most likely not going to acheive as much as someone born upper-class due to your natural limitations in intelligence.
The good news is that children of below average parents are likely to be more intelligent, due to a phenomena known as regression - where children of below average or above average parents have IQ scores closer to the mean IQ for their race than their parents.

What we need is an educational system that recognizes the unique individual needs of children with varying IQ levels and caters to them. The modern educational system is flawed in that it only caters to the average student - leaving both high IQ individuals and low IQ individuals behind where they should be.

What I'm saying is that instead of the gov't buying pencils, paper, markers, etc., etc., it should be spending more money on meeting the needs of all students.

Am I saying it's going to be cheap, or maybe cheaper than buying supplies? Definately not. Again, I'm saying that this enormous amount of money could be used for much better purposes...

According to your posts, all I've seen is that the ratio of Nature VS Nurture isn't 1:1, & that is only according to the studies that you've quoted.

And for some reason, you posted a link to a study "proving" whites are on average 15% smarter than blacks. For what reason, I don't know, but coupled with your proposal to cater education opportunities to the smarter students, I suppose you are saying that you want your tax dollars to go to white kids over black kids, since the white kids being more intelligent overall need more money to cater to their greater I.Q.s, while the black kids can be left behind, being genetically inferior (intellectually, that is, as per your posted link).

I'm not too sure about your motivations for posting this information. You should be careful...

What the **** does this have to do with Conspiracy Theories ?

And the research shows that even a smaller minority of people born to below-average intelligent parents (IQ < 100) make it into the upper-middle/upper classes.

The fact is that you inherit about 80% of your intelligence from your parents(see the research I posted before). Also, IQ correlates strongly with socio-economic rank (we'll call this SER). People with low SER generally have low IQ. Likewise, people with low IQ are most likely in a low SER. On the other hand, high IQ people are most likely to be in a high SER.That is not a fact at all. Correlation does not equal causation, and we have no fucking idea how much genetic factors affect IQ. I've said it before and I'll say it again, IQ tests do not provide an adequate metric for intelligence. They are a test of EDUCATION much more than they are a test of POTENTIAL or ABSOLUTE intelligence. Everyone can raise their IQ if they apply themselves, they just have to be taught how.

It's just as likely that the poor have low IQs because they have less access to decent education. Or it could be a combination of the two. You can't state with absolute certainty that all, or even most, stupid people are that way purely because of genetics, and there's nothing that could be done for them. You might as well adopt an Indian style caste system if that's the case, hell adopt a monarchy while you're at it, you've got a firmly entrenched political aristocracy already so it isn't much of a step.

This means that people born into low SER generally won't jump up into a high SER, unless, for whatever odd reason, their parents were rather intelligent but stayed low SER (two reasons I have already provided: discrimination back-in-the-day and cultural problems due to immigration).For a country that's supposed to be the poster boy of social mobility, the U.S. is in a pretty shameful place right now (I think you barely beat out the UK). Whatever happened to the American dream? You've made it now so **** everyone else?

Needless to say, I'm a firm believer in the empowering nature of education, and I'm a firm believer that an educated, informed populace SCARES THE **** out of politicians far more tha owning a fucking pop-gun ever fucking will.

According to your posts, all I've seen is that the ratio of Nature VS Nurture isn't 1:1, & that is only according to the studies that you've quoted.

If you would be kind enough, please post studies that prove otherwise.

Because, from what I know, all the studies performed on monozygotic twins reared apart shows that their IQ correlates around .8, or 80%.


And for some reason, you posted a link to a study "proving" whites are on average 15% smarter than blacks.

The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption study shows conclusively that children's IQ cannot be raised significantly over an extended period of time. It also shows that children's IQ correlates with their parent's IQ, even though they are reared apart in a much richer, well-to-do family.

The Trans-Racial study doesn't prove anything about whites being smarter than blacks. It proves that nature is much more important than nurture in determining your intelligence.

The study shows that in all cases, the IQ of the adopted children was closer to the IQ of their parents.


For what reason, I don't know, but coupled with your proposal to cater education opportunities to the smarter students, I suppose you are saying that you want your tax dollars to go to white kids over black kids, since the white kids being more intelligent overall need more money to cater to their greater I.Q.s, while the black kids can be left behind, being genetically inferior (intellectually, that is, as per your posted link).

I'm not too sure about your motivations for posting this information. You should be careful...

HARDY HAR HAR, I GOTZ A RACIST!1!1!1!LOLOLOLOL

I specifically stated that schools are geared towards providing education to the "average" student.

This benefits the "average" student, and prevents both the above and below average students from realizing their genetic potential. Above average students are understimulated while below average students are overwhelmed.

What I proposed was a school system that took genetic intelligence differences into account and which would cater to all the students' needs by creating different programs for below average, average, and above average students.

We could even allocate different schools within a given district for this, if it'd be somehow possible.

And in case you're wondering, I don't have any 'racial' motivations. The fact is that Asians score slightly above Caucasians, and that Jews, who most racists seem to hate, score the highest on IQ tests.

Since Caucasians score a 100 in America, which is the overall American average, they would benefit the least from my proposed program. Since the 'average' white is already considered the 'average' student in America, and schools already specifically cater to the 'average' student, my proposed program would force schools to redirect at least some of their attention to the 'below average' and 'above average' student.

And yes, in case you're wondering, blacks and Hispanics score lower, on average, on IQ tests. Another worrying trend is that low IQ blacks and Hispanics have more children than high IQ blacks and Hispanics. This is happening in all races, but the ratio of low IQ births to high IQ births is the worst among these groups. My hopes are that future government programs could perhaps reverse this trend. A program encouraging high IQ minority people to have children could actually eventually close the IQ gap between the races. However, for now, the program I proposed would help students from both groups to acheive better than now, and to perform closer to their genetic potential.

Some programs that cater to the specific needs of students, which means no students were either overwhelmed or understimulated, have shown an average increase of 5 (yes! 5!) IQ points. This wasn't a fluke either, but the gains were real and permanent.

So now is the time I congratulate you. So congrats for being a typical dumbass and decrying someone as racist w/o even carefully reading through the post you quoted. Oh, and congrats for making me have to spoon feed you the information how a program which caters to students' specific needs would actually help low IQ students more than average IQ students.

Typical wanabe PC liberal who decries everyone for either being an 'Uncle Tom' or a 'racist':

:godtroll:

He's actually proposing eugenics now... How old are you kaju?

http://wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html

From what I've seen, the correlation of IQ between twins reared apart usually varies between .5 and .8 (or between 50% and 80%).

The disagreement here is mainly due to how different researches view the mother's womb - what does the fact that monozygotic twins originate from the same egg mean? Some researches say nothing - in which case the IQ correlation is left at around the .8 range. Others, however, say that the fact that monozygotic twins, are, well, monozygotic, means that their IQ correlation is partly due to 'environment' in the mother - so these researchers lower the IQ heredibility to .5 from .8.

In either of these cases we can determine that:
You are born with a significant proportion of your intelligence already determined.
At least 50% of your intelligence is due to genes.
'Environment' cannot significantly improve your IQ over a long period of time (Weiberg & Scarr, link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study)).
Programs that target lower-acheiving children, therefore, are doomed to fail.
Am I saying that low acheiving students do not deserve the same educational opportunities that high acheiving students do? No, that isn't what I'm trying to say.

In the post that you responded to, I made two contentions:
That buying the supplies of all of America's schoolchildren would be too expensive and that money could be better spent.
That if you're born lower-class, you are most likely not going to acheive as much as someone born upper-class due to your natural limitations in intelligence.
The good news is that children of below average parents are likely to be more intelligent, due to a phenomena known as regression - where children of below average or above average parents have IQ scores closer to the mean IQ for their race than their parents.

What we need is an educational system that recognizes the unique individual needs of children with varying IQ levels and caters to them. The modern educational system is flawed in that it only caters to the average student - leaving both high IQ individuals and low IQ individuals behind where they should be.

What I'm saying is that instead of the gov't buying pencils, paper, markers, etc., etc., it should be spending more money on meeting the needs of all students.

Am I saying it's going to be cheap, or maybe cheaper than buying supplies? Definately not. Again, I'm saying that this enormous amount of money could be used for much better purposes.

If anyone is interested, I suggest some good books that go over the topic decently are:
The g Factor by Arthur Jensen
The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza
The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray
Conversations with Arthur Jensen by Frank Miele (this is basically and interview with Arthur Jensen)
Unfortunately, these books are somewhat overshadowed by the issue of race they bring up. People who haven't read through these books or haven't even touched these books will often call them "neo-nazi," "pseudo-scientific," and similar terms. The truth is that none of these authors are actually racist (D'Souza being an immigrant from India, Herrnstein being Jewish, and Jensen believing in the principles of Gandhi. As mentioned earlier, these books are all good when looking into the debate over genetics in the role of intelligence.

If you're looking for a critique of the role of genetics in IQ, the best you will find will be articles by Stephen Jay Gould, though his articles oftentimes ignore important evidence in favor of genetics playing a large role in IQ.

EDIT: On a side note, please realize I'm not saying that all lower class people are idiots. Immigrants, for example, often get worse jobs and therefore being in a lower class than they would be in their home nations. There are other exceptions to the rule, but I feel too damn lazy to point them out.


Are you a girl? Because I think if you are, I'm in love.

Don't you feel, I don't know this comment is innapropiate for a site like bullshido. Where we're supppose to help people who are or went to bullshit schools.


Would you like the short answer, or the long one? **** it, I'll give you both:

Short answer: NO
Long anser: NO

I'm not too sure about your motivations for posting this information. You should be careful...

Why? Because if he's not careful, you'll say some really nasty stuff to him on an internet forum? Heavens, no!

LOLZ!


That is not a fact at all. Correlation does not equal causation, and we have no fucking idea how much genetic factors affect IQ.
Yes, we do know that your genes causes between 50 and 80 percent of your intelligence.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, IQ tests do not provide an adequate metric for intelligence. They are a test of EDUCATION much more than they are a test of POTENTIAL or ABSOLUTE intelligence. Everyone can raise their IQ if they apply themselves, they just have to be taught how.
Are you telling me that someone who dropped out in 8th grade is just as intelligent as someone who got a PhD?

First, you claim IQ doesn't measure intelligence, and then you say that education can raise IQ.

Let me explain:

I NEVER stated that IQ tests measure your potential or absolute intelligence. It is obvious that if you had more education you would do better on an IQ test. However, remember the Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption study I posted and you quoted?

That study showed, that, in fact, children cannot have their IQ raised beyond a few points of their parents' scores even if they're brought up in a first rate environment with different substitute parents. All the races in the study scored close to the mean IQ for their race, even though all the children were raised in a home environment much better than the one they would've been raised in have they not been adopted.

YOU ARE LIMITED BY YOUR GENETICS.




It's just as likely that the poor have low IQs because they have less access to decent education.
This definitely contributes to the problem.

However, as stated earlier, education, or any other kind of 'nurture' for that matter, has failed to raise the IQs of children signifcantly and permanently.


Or it could be a combination of the two.
No ****.

That's what I've been saying.

If you read the studies I posted, you would notice that intelligence was determined to be between 50% and 80% genetic.

That means it was between 20% and 50% environmental. Which in turn means that better education can improve your scores, but in no way can you or will you become Einstein if your parents averaged a 75 on non-biased IQ tests.

That is why I suggested a special school program that caters to both high IQ and low IQ children in additonal to the 'average' so that all children could perform closer to their genetic potential.


You can't state with absolute certainty that all, or even most, stupid people are that way purely because of genetics, and there's nothing that could be done for them.
I never stated that there is nothing that can be done for them.

That is why I suggested the school system that deals with below average, average, and above average students' needs. That way, all students could acheive closer to their potential. Currently, schools focus only on their 'average' student, leaving all the others out.

And again, I never stated that all stupid people are "stupid purely because of genetics." That would be stupid (lol). As stated previously, IQ has been determined to be between 50 and 80% genetic. That leaves for a lot of improvement room (between 20 and 50%).


You might as well adopt an Indian style caste system if that's the case, hell adopt a monarchy while you're at it, you've got a firmly entrenched political aristocracy already so it isn't much of a step.
LOLOLOLOLOL

Again, I said that we need a better educational system.

The good thing about not having a caste system is that it leaves the window open for regression, a phenomena in which the children of below and above average parents have IQs closer to their racial average than to their parents' average.

My personal hope is that one day the government promotes the idea of high IQ individuals having more children than low IQ individuals. Maybe by providing free birth control, this could be dealt with better (considering that many children are born to low IQ people due to the lack of any contraceptive). In any case, I'll leave that for future generations to figure out.


For a country that's supposed to be the poster boy of social mobility, the U.S. is in a pretty shameful place right now (I think you barely beat out the UK). Whatever happened to the American dream? You've made it now so **** everyone else?
Attacking America's image does nothing to disprove the contentions in my previous post.


Needless to say, I'm a firm believer in the empowering nature of education, and I'm a firm believer that an educated, informed populace SCARES THE **** out of politicians far more tha owning a fucking pop-gun ever fucking will.
Good, something we agree on.

Are you a girl? Because I think if you are, I'm in love.
No, but I can go gay for a night...

:love8:


(j/k)

EDIT: ^^I had to put the 'j/k' considering that I've been posting a lot of gay messages on Bullshido recently, lol.

No, but I can go gay for a night...

:love8:


(j/k)

EDIT: ^^I had to put the 'j/k' considering that I've been posting a lot of gay messages on Bullshido recently, lol.


Dammit. In that case, how about those Lions?