At 3/3/13 01:24 PM, Famas wrote:
If you are mentally deficient in the USA, you get special helpFrom who? What kind of help? Social security? People without mental disabilities also have access to that.
The lower your IQ, the more programs and organizations exist to help you.
Though to be fair, when your IQ is 60-70, chances are you can probably manage to live alone, but not finish high school or anything like that.
Courts can rule somebody too incompetent to vote here.
There's no IQ test when you vote.
You're listing off legal rights though, not inalienable rights.
I think you have some reflecting to do on the nature of the world my friend.
In what capacity and to what end?
So we know if social programs to help minorities are bullshit and a waste of money. Same with international aid.
Plus, why would you even ask that? Knowledge is knowledge.
"Nigerians can never be scientists"
Do you know what an "average" is?
Why is this somehow a concern? Are you attempting to draw a link between a cultures contribution to science/academics and whether or not they have the right to exist?
Read up on places like Liberia
I did. Nothing whatsoever convinces me that the state of their countries is solely ( or mainly ) the fault of anyone but themselves.
But that's not the point of this topic.
At 3/3/13 03:39 PM, Feoric wrote:
Hmm, interesting. Suppose there is a black Confucian living in South Korea with Nigerian heritage who's taking the test. Do you think his IQ score would be the same if he took the test while living in Nigeria?
Black people in other countries also have lower average IQs, and asian people outside of their origin countries also score higher.
Show me proof that race is a cause of intelligence.
This kind of study has been done endless times always with the same results.
And always this is blamed on racism, which is bullshit as it does not explain
1- Why asians score higher than whites
2- Why children of mixed ethnicity who don't even know they had black parents ( and no one does really ) have lower IQs
This is literally what Rushton specializes in.
Well have fun reading his rebuttal to Gould.
So unless you can show me some work by the guy
He's not the one doing the studies, he just gathers the data.
Data that people admit have the same results that he claims. Where he explains those results by genetics, the others will always use the hand-waving "oh it's just culture/ racism" explanation, citing that it's impossible to control for racism.
Who's disputing these twin / adoption studies??? All they do is attack him on the grounds that his conclusions are too hasty and that we shouldn't even try to gather more data because it's too racist-sounding.
Again, no clue what that giant wall of text even means.
All I'm seeing is a sad attempt to explain away mass amounts of data by saying they did a couple graphs in the book wrong.
They don't call into question the results or show that they are false or opposite, they just have the same hand-waving explanation that "oh well there's obviously a correlation but maybe not causation".
Yeah dream on.
Wow! So all the dozens of people who rebutted Rushton and The Bell Curve are also getting funding by crazy KKK rednecks? And the studies mentioned in those books as evidence? They too were all funded by the same people?
There's obvious political gain to be made by being against Rushton. His findings and viewpoints are hugely unpopular.
Books like Guns, Germs and Steel sell TONS of copies because they reiterate this idea that everyone is really just equal and whatever your lot in life is is due to luck or the oppression of others.
Using the same data as Rushton, they posit the opposite hypothesis, that environemental factors account for ALL of the variance, while at the same time saying that Rushton can't control for racism or whatever shit.
So THEY get to say that racism / culture is definitely the cause, but he can't say that it's genetics, even though his side is hugely more logical, likely and supported by evidence.
So being born to low IQ parents and being adopted by bright ones will pull you up to average.
Again Rushton never denies that environmental factors play a large role.
So describe to me how race is the deciding factor here, and not environment.
Race is not always the deciding factor, it's just a huge factor.
Given the same upbringing by the same parents, race will be the biggest factor. But given different situations, race will play less of a role than education, money, nutrition etc.
All things being equal, you can predict who will score what on the tests no matter what and at every young ages ( which blows the whole racism / culture bullshit out of the water ).
Give me some examples then.
That book's got dozens of studies.
Probably. Not that I read it. Haha.
All you'll ever find as rebuttals are people going for minutia, like "OH LOOK AT THIS COUNTRY, THEY CAN'T HAVE DATA FOR THAT ONE!!".
The data's become even clearer in the last 15 years, but again it's EXTREMELY politically unpopular. Just look at people's reaction here.
I love it.