feihlination
Active member
what happened to you? are you feeling sick or so? besides youre complete focus on this almost non-existent "independent sources" thingy, youve seemed pretty reasonable for a few days
Why is it acceptable
- Thread starter Thadius.Castle
- Start date
feihlination
Active member
anybody seeing that? classic. the other guy makes a quality post and dingo fuckhead picks out a single part of it because he knows that he is owned by the rest of it.
if ice age europe was as tough as other areas, why didnt all areas experience your "selection pressure"?
if ice age europe was as tough as other areas, why didnt all areas experience your "selection pressure"?
feihlination
Active member
why am i getting owned? you copy and paste half an article that kind of negates or softens its stance in the missing part. so you admit that your point is so weak that you need to brush your "arguments" up.
ILLinoisance
Active member
Best post skiierman has ever made.
feihlination
Active member
thought that too. cant believe whats going on with that guy. maybe he is in super-irony mode, still not feeling it 100%
By debate you mean unbiased scientists discovering race/intelligence gaps, and biased non scientists trying to make up every excuse they can to account for those differences. It wasnt a quality post at all. Im not even going to talk with you about selection pressure. Youre a fucking idiot and you wont understand it. All you have to ask yourself is whether a more developed society is more or less rewarding to someome borm imtelligent. Sub saharan Africa has been stable as a bunch of tribes who didnt even know how to farm for centuries. Having a brain there would provide you marginally better survival/reproduction unlike in developing europe. Im not going to waste my time arguing with you cunts, you both know that what you are saying is complete bullshit, but you get some moral good feeling out of being that guy who says some somalian chewing cat could be the next einstein. Fuck you guys. Youre not doing anybody a service shoveling that shite
feihlination
Active member
what unbiased scientists? mengele? heim?
those differences in your article are based on US studies, once again. and they measure IQ, not intelligence. how can western researchers create a perfect IQ test for some tribe with a rare language in africa?
and your selection pressure argument is so fucking irrelevant and contradicting its not even funny. these "complex" and "developed" societies also have (and had) the property that (at first not obviously but gradually more and more) EVERYONE CAN REPRODUCE because of medical and agricultural advancements.
i am not trying to convince you racist fuckhead, because you clearly see people in africa as apes that barely "can pick up rocks". but i want that no other potential fuckhead even remotely believes your hatred.
those differences in your article are based on US studies, once again. and they measure IQ, not intelligence. how can western researchers create a perfect IQ test for some tribe with a rare language in africa?
and your selection pressure argument is so fucking irrelevant and contradicting its not even funny. these "complex" and "developed" societies also have (and had) the property that (at first not obviously but gradually more and more) EVERYONE CAN REPRODUCE because of medical and agricultural advancements.
i am not trying to convince you racist fuckhead, because you clearly see people in africa as apes that barely "can pick up rocks". but i want that no other potential fuckhead even remotely believes your hatred.
Iq is the best single predictor of later socioeconomic outcome in life. So go ahead and say it doesnt represent inteligence. Its just that ppl with high iqs end up doing well in life. Haha. Their not any smarter, they are just better at making money. Haha iq must mean how good you are at dicking people over. Youre hilarious. Also since the iq test is developed by caucasians, why are asians doing the best on it? like i said earlier, the top 3 iq nations in the world have developed the mist advanced technology in the world. Whats your excuse for that buddy? technology is racist? hahaha And in the last 10000 years, not everybody could reproduce you fucking idiot. Times were harder. People had to make a living before they had kids, unlike today where poor people just cant put the dick down. And successful people had lots of kids. 10 20 sometimes more.
ohmyglob8
Member
cavemen didnt leave the middle east/indian coast of africa for a long ass time, 750,000 years ago to be exact and thats when the land started to dry out so they moved up north into europe. and this ice age ur talking about was 2.4 billion years ago in the proterozoic eon way before our ancestors were even close to looking anything like apes or us. so here ya go, point goes to intellectuals. inbreds still at zero
feihlination
Active member
1) during the times "which were harder" in europe and asia, times were not any less harder in africa. so i dont really know why you would use that as an argument.
2) so intelligence means ability to have success? great argument.
3) for centuries, people werent able to "change" classes, so intelligence wasnt a factor in success, because only aristocratic classes were able to have "socio economic success"
4) i am not arguing over the validity of IQ tests because they are horseshit bad in measuring intelligence potential. my example with the remote tribe was directed at that you have to have a good understanding (native speaker) of the participants language to conduct a legit IQ test (and i doubt that these western researchers put too much effort into learning all 1000 of african languages and dialects). but japanese or korean arent that unknown languages. IQ tests are maybe a reasonable tool for comparing applicants for a job, but definitely not for international comparisons.
2) so intelligence means ability to have success? great argument.
3) for centuries, people werent able to "change" classes, so intelligence wasnt a factor in success, because only aristocratic classes were able to have "socio economic success"
4) i am not arguing over the validity of IQ tests because they are horseshit bad in measuring intelligence potential. my example with the remote tribe was directed at that you have to have a good understanding (native speaker) of the participants language to conduct a legit IQ test (and i doubt that these western researchers put too much effort into learning all 1000 of african languages and dialects). but japanese or korean arent that unknown languages. IQ tests are maybe a reasonable tool for comparing applicants for a job, but definitely not for international comparisons.
ohmyglob8
Member
u said ice age, i suggest being more accurate if your gonna arguing online. and during that ice age our population was on the rise so in the event of such an ice age we would have taken some damage with out populations numbers but nothing considerably disastrous that it knocked us off as a species entirely. oh and good insult ur just slowly proving my point, and ur only doing it slowly because u cant use the brain power necessary to argue with someone of my intellectual level. Damn intellectuals 2 points inbreds still at zero
1 ice age did not affect africa. You lose.
2. Yes iq score is the single best predictor of economic success. According to you iq is not representative of intelligence so we have all these high iq people who are successful and building cutting edge technology who are somehow not any smarter than average. You lose again.
3 class structure negated the ability of anyone to ever break out of their class. All across the world. Forever. Rediculous point. You lose again.
4 the important parts of an iq test involve patterns, not words, and this is the reason why japaneze and s koreans score better than caucasians at a test developed by caucasians. Also why would african americans score 15 pts lower since they are schooled in english just as white americans are?
You lose x5
Youve lost this argument. I dont see why you keep posting you just give me a chance to prove my point further, you idiot
2. Yes iq score is the single best predictor of economic success. According to you iq is not representative of intelligence so we have all these high iq people who are successful and building cutting edge technology who are somehow not any smarter than average. You lose again.
3 class structure negated the ability of anyone to ever break out of their class. All across the world. Forever. Rediculous point. You lose again.
4 the important parts of an iq test involve patterns, not words, and this is the reason why japaneze and s koreans score better than caucasians at a test developed by caucasians. Also why would african americans score 15 pts lower since they are schooled in english just as white americans are?
You lose x5
Youve lost this argument. I dont see why you keep posting you just give me a chance to prove my point further, you idiot
wasatch_rat
Active member
check yourself dude. this isn't true, and it is extremely xenophobic. it is also absolutely not ok for them to torture our citizens, and, in case you haven't noticed, the world doesn't stop when christians do it to muslims. open your eyes and see the bigger picture, muslims are socially constructed people living in different cultures and sub cultures with vastly differing political ideologies and rates of extremism.
seriously what are you basing this on? a movie? or are you just assuming that the media reporting on riots in some muslim countries means all muslims in all countries immediately resort to violence? i guess indonesia must still be working on getting back at us for the whole abu ghraib thing.
and you hate all religions? dude get off r/atheism and remember how many people in the world are religious. fundamentalism, evangelism, and extremism can be awful, and you might even think religion is a net-evil, but hating religion is as backward as hating atheism.
"i'm not a bigot, i hate all religions." as an agnostic, that sounds pretty bigoted to me. "i'm not a bigot, i hate all people who don't have the same race/gender/sexuality/ideology as me." see how ridiculous that sounds?
seriously what are you basing this on? a movie? or are you just assuming that the media reporting on riots in some muslim countries means all muslims in all countries immediately resort to violence? i guess indonesia must still be working on getting back at us for the whole abu ghraib thing.
and you hate all religions? dude get off r/atheism and remember how many people in the world are religious. fundamentalism, evangelism, and extremism can be awful, and you might even think religion is a net-evil, but hating religion is as backward as hating atheism.
"i'm not a bigot, i hate all religions." as an agnostic, that sounds pretty bigoted to me. "i'm not a bigot, i hate all people who don't have the same race/gender/sexuality/ideology as me." see how ridiculous that sounds?
feihlination
Active member
1) are times automatically harder just because its colder? ok, you need fucking clothes, but thats about it. you could argue similarly that only the dumb guys had to go where its cold. bad argument.
2) see point 4
3) if noone can break out of classes, intelligence is not a selection pressure element. idk why you think this is a point in favor of your argument. you are the one arguing that certain countries had specific properties that promote intelligence.
4) why are north koreans worse than south koreans? and in general, you are beginning to understand the issue. IQ tests varying between blacks and whites in the US are not representative because you do not know if the difference is due to intelligence or due to socioeconomic variables closely related to "races". whites and asians have higher average educations which in turn leads to higher IQ scores. most definitely not the other way round.
and by the way, if youre able to count, i only had 4 points, but its ok.
2) see point 4
3) if noone can break out of classes, intelligence is not a selection pressure element. idk why you think this is a point in favor of your argument. you are the one arguing that certain countries had specific properties that promote intelligence.
4) why are north koreans worse than south koreans? and in general, you are beginning to understand the issue. IQ tests varying between blacks and whites in the US are not representative because you do not know if the difference is due to intelligence or due to socioeconomic variables closely related to "races". whites and asians have higher average educations which in turn leads to higher IQ scores. most definitely not the other way round.
and by the way, if youre able to count, i only had 4 points, but its ok.
feihlination
Active member
you stopped reading? nice job dude. i know i lost, please just refute my points once more, ok? please this time with a logical consistent basis.
youre flip flopping around how times were tough or not tough and how the whole planet is equal or not equal and during this time it was like this and during another time it was like that and youre barely able to follow and depict a logically consistent thread of thought.
youre flip flopping around how times were tough or not tough and how the whole planet is equal or not equal and during this time it was like this and during another time it was like that and youre barely able to follow and depict a logically consistent thread of thought.
Still waiting for you to back up your original claim the whit black and asian kids score evenly on iq tests when taken away from their mothers. Haha you thought you could spew your politically correct bullshit and people would buy it. Honestly dude you are such a fucking tool
feihlination
Active member
well first: just in general, ice age europe was full of archaic tribes battling to survive, like anywhere on the globe.
there is literally no evidence of any LEGIT cultural advancement before the middle east developed it and stuff spread towards us. so your and your aliases argument is in itself wrong because civilization was born in what was then among the most fertile areas of the world.
and also a quality argument with the video. nice job
there is literally no evidence of any LEGIT cultural advancement before the middle east developed it and stuff spread towards us. so your and your aliases argument is in itself wrong because civilization was born in what was then among the most fertile areas of the world.
and also a quality argument with the video. nice job
feihlination
Active member
since dingo is apparently such a big fan of lynn,
here are some reviews to his book by unbiased scientists:
A review by Nicholas Mackintosh, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, expresses astonishment that Lynn infers that Kalahari bushmen, with an average measured IQ of 54, should be regarded as mentally retarded; and that an 8 year old European child with the equivalent mental age would have no problems surviving in the same desert environment. Mackintosh questions Lynn's hypothesis that migration to more harsh northern climates and ice ages selected for higher IQ by pointing to harshness of environments such as the Australian Outback. Lynn argues that racial differences in brain size indicates different evolutionary pressure on intelligence. Mackintosh argues that the cranial capacity of early Homo sapiens, 100,000 or more years ago, was rather greater than that of modern Europeans. He criticizes Lynn for reporting data incorrectly, in some cases from studies by Mackintosh himself. He writes: "The errors may not be particularly important, and I do not know how typical they are. But they do not increase my confidence in Lynn's scholarship." He also writes:[4]
A more egregious example is provided by his treatment of the Eyferth (1961) study of two groups of illegitimate children fathered by (mostly) American black and white servicemen and brought up by their (carefully matched) German mothers. Eyferth reported an average IQ of 96.5 for the mixed race children and of 97.2 for the whites. Lynn reduces the former number to 94 to compensate for use of an old test, and compares it, not with the score of the white sample, but with an average IQ of 100 for German children. He is thus able to conclude that the IQ of these mixed race children is half way between that of Americans and Africans. He derives the same conclusion from the Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman (1992) transracial adoption study since, at the 10-year follow-up, the mixed race children had an average IQ of 94, mid-way between the 102 of the white children and the 89 of the black children. He omits to mention one of the more salient features of this follow-up, namely, that there had been substantial attrition in the white sample—with a loss of those children with lower IQ scores, resulting in an overestimate of the white group's IQ by some 6 points.
"Much labour has gone into this book. But I fear it is the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name. As a source of references, it will be useful to some. As a source of information, it should be treated with some suspicion. On the other hand, Lynn's preconceptions are so plain, and so pungently expressed, that many readers will be suspicious from the outset."
A review by John C. Loehlin, University of Texas Professor emeritus, argues that the general trends in the data that Lynn presents are probably dependable, but faults Lynn for carelessness in how his conclusions are presented. Loehlin summarizes his view of the book as follows:
Is this book the final word on race differences in intelligence? Of course not. But Richard Lynn is a major player, and it is good to have his extensive work on this topic together in one place. Future workers who address these matters under this or any other label will find that Lynn has done a lot of spadework for them. And they will also find that there is plenty to ponder over within these pages.[5]
In a 2008 review of the data used in Lynn's book, Hunt and Wittmann[6] write:
"The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ across cohorts (the “Flynn” effect), on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003[7]) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries.
-------------
he straight up manipulated data and makes questionable claims all over the place. women have smaller brain capacities as well, but are they dumber? idk how dingo can defend this joke of a book. pseudoscience at its best.
here are some reviews to his book by unbiased scientists:
A review by Nicholas Mackintosh, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, expresses astonishment that Lynn infers that Kalahari bushmen, with an average measured IQ of 54, should be regarded as mentally retarded; and that an 8 year old European child with the equivalent mental age would have no problems surviving in the same desert environment. Mackintosh questions Lynn's hypothesis that migration to more harsh northern climates and ice ages selected for higher IQ by pointing to harshness of environments such as the Australian Outback. Lynn argues that racial differences in brain size indicates different evolutionary pressure on intelligence. Mackintosh argues that the cranial capacity of early Homo sapiens, 100,000 or more years ago, was rather greater than that of modern Europeans. He criticizes Lynn for reporting data incorrectly, in some cases from studies by Mackintosh himself. He writes: "The errors may not be particularly important, and I do not know how typical they are. But they do not increase my confidence in Lynn's scholarship." He also writes:[4]
A more egregious example is provided by his treatment of the Eyferth (1961) study of two groups of illegitimate children fathered by (mostly) American black and white servicemen and brought up by their (carefully matched) German mothers. Eyferth reported an average IQ of 96.5 for the mixed race children and of 97.2 for the whites. Lynn reduces the former number to 94 to compensate for use of an old test, and compares it, not with the score of the white sample, but with an average IQ of 100 for German children. He is thus able to conclude that the IQ of these mixed race children is half way between that of Americans and Africans. He derives the same conclusion from the Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman (1992) transracial adoption study since, at the 10-year follow-up, the mixed race children had an average IQ of 94, mid-way between the 102 of the white children and the 89 of the black children. He omits to mention one of the more salient features of this follow-up, namely, that there had been substantial attrition in the white sample—with a loss of those children with lower IQ scores, resulting in an overestimate of the white group's IQ by some 6 points.
"Much labour has gone into this book. But I fear it is the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name. As a source of references, it will be useful to some. As a source of information, it should be treated with some suspicion. On the other hand, Lynn's preconceptions are so plain, and so pungently expressed, that many readers will be suspicious from the outset."
A review by John C. Loehlin, University of Texas Professor emeritus, argues that the general trends in the data that Lynn presents are probably dependable, but faults Lynn for carelessness in how his conclusions are presented. Loehlin summarizes his view of the book as follows:
Is this book the final word on race differences in intelligence? Of course not. But Richard Lynn is a major player, and it is good to have his extensive work on this topic together in one place. Future workers who address these matters under this or any other label will find that Lynn has done a lot of spadework for them. And they will also find that there is plenty to ponder over within these pages.[5]
In a 2008 review of the data used in Lynn's book, Hunt and Wittmann[6] write:
"The majority of the data points were based upon convenience rather than representative samples. Some points were not even based on residents of the country. For instance, the “data point” for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the “data point” for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ across cohorts (the “Flynn” effect), on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003[7]) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries.
-------------
he straight up manipulated data and makes questionable claims all over the place. women have smaller brain capacities as well, but are they dumber? idk how dingo can defend this joke of a book. pseudoscience at its best.
s_a_m
Member
Yeah, pretty much. I like conspiracy theories too man, but I really dont think this is one. I'd be interested to hear why you do? I don't understand your point about ignoring terrorist attack, since it is irrelevant to what im talking about. The post you quoted is about civilian casualties in the Middle East not America.