 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / June 2006Academia flashes it's labia !!!!!
Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php Reprinted from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 John There is no biological reality of the popular culture concept of "race". > There is no biological reality of the popular culture concept of "race". Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. In society A, females favor the "hunks", the guys with muscles and big dicks. In society B, femailes favor the "brains", guys showing great intelligence and ability to handle abstractions. Now which society will produce smarter people? Which society will produce more muscular or athletic people? Bob Kolker "Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. In society A, females favor the "hunks", the guys with muscles and big dicks. In society B, femailes favor the "brains", guys showing great intelligence and ability to handle abstractions. Now which society will produce smarter people? Which society will produce more muscular or athletic people?" The experiment has been done, the hunks are chosen because they are bright enough to know what the woman wants. Even in the movies, who gets the chick, the hunk or the geek? Such hypothedicals are irrelevant because in all ccultures what is percieved as "hunk" and what "smart" exist as they define it and the women choose accordingly. > "Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. In society A, females favor the > "hunks", the guys with muscles and big dicks. In society B, femailes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > all ccultures what is percieved as "hunk" and what "smart" exist as they > define it and the women choose accordingly. In translation: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing. Mr. Cole's Axiom > There is no biological reality of the popular culture concept of "race". And beagles are the same in behavior as terriers. John >> There is no biological reality of the popular culture concept of "race". > >And beagles are the same in behavior as terriers. And the leopard doesn't change his spots nor the motivation for his behavior. Repeat, discussion welcome based on science, there are no "races" as understood in common usage. The two dog varieties mentioned are not "races" either. >Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. > >http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php > >Reprinted from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 Commented on with breathtaking ignorance by a bunch of white-supremacists jackanapes suffering from brain envy. George M. Carter <johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ... > Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. > http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php > Reprinted from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 > John The problem is that the researcher tried to correlate genes with 'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you measure _innate_ intelligence (with social effects removed), and there is no such measure. Dan in Philly ><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ... >> Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you measure _innate_ >intelligence (with social effects removed), and there is no such measure. Are you saying that a person born naturally dumb can become intelligent by the works of some "social effects"? Do you have any references suggesting that intelligence can be learned?  Signature"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -- Bertrand Russell >><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you measure _innate_ >>intelligence (with social effects removed), and there is no such measure. > Are you saying that a person born naturally dumb can become > intelligent by the works of some "social effects"? Do you have any > references suggesting that intelligence can be learned? I think he's suggesting rather the opposite, that a person can become "dumb" (by your standard) if his culture has different values and imperatives and simply doesn't concentrate on the issues you find important or indicative of "intelligence". For example, quite a few years ago I read a thesis concerning "IQ" tests. US, inner city kids (mostly blacks and latinos) were doing very poorly on standard IQ tests. A researcher, I don't remember the name, proposed that this was not the result of any generally lower intelligence but of how the questions were being posed and he re-wrote the IQ tests in street language and tested thinking skills with problems that would be more familiar to an inner city kid and voila, the IQ scores rose dramatically. As a "control", when these "new" tests were administered to suburban (usually white and oriental) kids, their scores dropped dramatically for just like the inner city kids had been on the old tests, the suburban kids were being faced with problems they had never confronted before, in language they didn't fully understand...the test methodology (ie: the test "culture") was making them look "dumb"... ...Ken >>><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >language they didn't fully understand...the test methodology (ie: the >test "culture") was making them look "dumb"... Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to see the results. In any case, I find intresting that researchers can develop good IQ tests for parrots (no culture!) and have this kind of problem for humans. Signature"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -- Bertrand Russell <snip> If we really wanted to separate the genetic component of intelligence from social effects, we would take a bunch of newborn kids from smart parents, then assign them randomly to different families. Ten or twenty years later we could check to see if the kids raised by 'dumb' parents also ended up dumb, or ended up smart like their genetic parents. Somehow I don't think we'll see this experiment done anytime soon. Dan in Philly >If we really wanted to separate the genetic component of intelligence from >social effects, we would take a bunch of newborn kids from smart parents, >then assign them randomly to different families. Ten or twenty years later >we could check to see if the kids raised by 'dumb' parents also ended up >dumb, or ended up smart like their genetic parents. I believe something has already been done with twins that for some reason were separated at birth. If I'm not mistaken, I read about this on Freakonomics. The conclusion is that genetics is the main contributor to academic performance (explains 50% of the correlation) with the second most influential thing being peer pressure. Signature"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -- Bertrand Russell >>>><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>language they didn't fully understand...the test methodology (ie: the >>test "culture") was making them look "dumb"... > Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to see the results. In any > case, I find intresting that researchers can develop good IQ tests for > parrots (no culture!) and have this kind of problem for humans. Unfortunately no, this was some years ago...actually before wide spread use of the internet. The article was, if I recall, in a Scientific journal (I read a fair number of them) but I can't say whether it was in "Science" or "Scientific American" or a Psychology journal... ...Ken |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.