Obama's Press Conference Mistake

CANADIEN · August 2, 2009

ahahah sorta like the statement that "ALL GENERLIZATIONS ARE FALSE"
think about that

Of course, I'd never say something like that.

Cato · August 2, 2009

Nice though to see that you revert to the old baseless argument that I.Q. is linked to intelligence and intelligence to race

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that; the problem is drowing wrong conclusions.

1. IQ measures only one kind of intelligence, namely the analytic one. This is the intelligence, which is important in many occupations and in math and sciences. Its measurement is often faulty, biased. For example I saw such a test (an "official" one), with questions aiming at the recognition of analogies, but someone would have to have some certain knowledge specific to USA history and politics, in order to understand the question. Thus anyone not having the necessary background/education would score lower. Plus, practicing with such tests enhances the result in very high degree without increasing the analytic intelligence.

2. Other kinds of intelligence are independent of the analytic one (musical, interpersonal, linguistic...). They are more important than the analytic intelligence in certain occupations and situations.

3. The statement "intelligence is linked to race" is true only in statistical sense. It does not mean, that every individual of one race is more intelligent than every individual of the other race.

Thus, even though the statement is correct, it is pretty irrelevant as an argument for or against anything.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Cato

lictor616 · August 2, 2009

The "difference means unequality" non-sense is so ridiculous it shows just by writing it.
But since you talk about similarities. Human beings are all... human beings. That's similarity enough for me.

you're not even making sense anymore... you can't even show through A and B why what I say is "non-sense" as you write it? What's your deal dude?

I mean really... is it really nonsense to say taht because something is different it's by definition NOT EQUAL!?!?!? I mean what sort of madman does it take to say that if something is different: its equal?

"human beings are human beings", what a gross copout! Are all felines felines .. yes... but who would dream to think a tiger is equal to a leopard?

that similarity's enough for you? wow what an intellectual capitulation ... seems to me that you forbid yourself to ask questions less you discover "unthinkable thoughts"...

like a true lemming... "TV said it so it must be true"...

CANADIEN · August 2, 2009

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that; the problem is drowing wrong conclusions.
1. IQ measures only one kind of intelligence, namely the analytic one. This the is intelligence, which is important in many occupations and in math and sciences. Even the measurement of this is faulty, biased. For example I saw such a test (an "official" one), with questions aiming at the recognotion of analogies, but someone would have to have some certain knowledge specific to USA history and politics, in order to understand the question. Thus anyone not having the necessary background/education would score lower.

2. Other kinds of intelligence are independent of the analytic one (musical, interpersonal, linguistic...). They are more important than the analytic intelligence in certain occupations and situations.

3. The statement "intelligence is linked to race" is true only in statistical sense. It does not mean, that every individual of one race is more intelligent than every individual of the other race.

Thus, even though the statement is correct, it is pretty irrelevant as an argument for or against anything.

Your point no 1 exemplifies why the link between IQ 9or to be more accurate, IQ test score) and iiintelligenc is teneous at best. too many other factors (socio-economic background, quality of education environment, even choice of questions) can play a factor

lictor616 · August 2, 2009

Your point no 1 exemplifies why the link between IQ 9or to be more accurate, IQ test score) and iiintelligenc is teneous at best. too many other factors (socio-economic background, quality of education environment, even choice of questions) can play a factor

nature vs nurture... its true taht both are important... but intelligence is undoubtedly still largely derived form genetics... they are the base... without proper genes, no amount of education, money or positive environment will change anything...

CANADIEN · August 2, 2009

you're not even making sense anymore...

this, coming from you... me kettle, you pot.

"human beings are human beings", what a gross copout! Are all felines felines .. yes... but who would dream to think a tiger is equal to a leopard?

To state that two things, or animals, or two people are not euqal is is not only to say they're different, but to place them on a scale. The only measure of the value of human beings is their thoughts and their actions, not their race.

seems to me that you forbid yourself to ask questions less you discover "unthinkable thoughts"...

:lol: :lol: :lol: It is exactly because I ask myself questions that I can recognize drivel such as yours.

CANADIEN · August 2, 2009

nature vs nurture... its true taht both are important... but intelligence is undoubtedly still largely derived form genetics... they are the base... without proper genes, no amount of education, money or positive environment will change anything...

Yet, the so called causality between genes and intelligence is fiction.

How do you explain that the gap in IQ test scores between Black and White Americans decreased after school desegregation? Genetic mutation?

jbg · August 2, 2009

Whereas "Cato" evokes reference to the Cato Institute, a very American libertarian / classical liberal organization, or OJ Simpson's / Green Hornet's sidekick (Kato).

Isn't it called the Cato Liberation Front?

jbg · August 2, 2009

Nice though to see that you revert to the old baseless argument that I.Q. is linked to intelligence and intelligence to race.

IQ is linked to intelligence. My IQ is 79.

lictor616 · August 2, 2009

Yet, the so called causality between genes and intelligence is fiction.
How do you explain that the gap in IQ test scores between Black and White Americans decreased after school desegregation? Genetic mutation?

canadien... You and I both know that you are very ignorant of modern biology... genes are the building blocks of who we are... if we have a trait... you can bet your bottom dollar that genes have something to do with it.

Of course it follows that genes are responsible for the formation of the brain, and many of its faculties... For instance down syndrome is genetic... how could you possibly say that genes have no relationship with a person's intelligence? Especially when we know certain genetic aberrations produce mentally retarded creatures with no prospect for IQ's higher then 45?

there are many sources taht corroborates this but here's an article about one of the specific genes themselves..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60427161424.htm

Edited August 2, 2009 by lictor616

Oleg Bach · August 3, 2009

canadien... You and I both know that you are very ignorant of modern biology... genes are the building blocks of who we are... if we have a trait... you can bet your bottom dollar that genes have something to do with it.
Of course it follows that genes are responsible for the formation of the brain, and many of its faculties... For instance down syndrome is genetic... how could you possibly say that genes have no relationship with a person's intelligence? Especially when we know certain genetic aberrations produce mentally retarded creatures with no prospect for IQ's higher then 45?

there are many sources taht corroborates this but here's an article about one of the specific genes themselves..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60427161424.htm

Thats' plain dumb - that pigment in the skin or lack of it has anything to do with intelligence..if you are a dumbo you are a dumbo - sure if you intrigate the dumbos with the other dumbos - some of the dumbos will absorb a little bit of smart spark that some other dumbo might have..in the over all - ALL human beings are basic and delluded and not very bright - including me.................................................and you.

lictor616 · August 3, 2009

Thats' plain dumb - that pigment in the skin or lack of it has anything to do with intelligence..if you are a dumbo you are a dumbo - sure if you intrigate the dumbos with the other dumbos - some of the dumbos will absorb a little bit of smart spark that some other dumbo might have..in the over all - ALL human beings are basic and delluded and not very bright - including me.................................................and you.

who said SKIN COLOR was the controlling factor? RAce and skin color are two different things... Skin color is a minute element of race...

August 3, 2009

"human beings are human beings", what a gross copout! Are all felines felines .. yes... but who would dream to think a tiger is equal to a leopard?

Seriously? So are you saying that there are different species of human?

canadien... You and I both know that you are very ignorant of modern biology... genes are the building blocks of who we are... if we have a trait... you can bet your bottom dollar that genes have something to do with it.
Of course it follows that genes are responsible for the formation of the brain, and many of its faculties... For instance down syndrome is genetic... how could you possibly say that genes have no relationship with a person's intelligence? Especially when we know certain genetic aberrations produce mentally retarded creatures with no prospect for IQ's higher then 45?

there are many sources taht corroborates this but here's an article about one of the specific genes themselves..

Your right genes do effect intelligence but there is more difference in genes in a population of animals then there is between two populations of animals unless that's changed in the last 2 years.

lictor616 · August 3, 2009

Seriously? So are you saying that there are different species of human?
Your right genes do effect intelligence but there is more difference in genes in a population of animals then there is between two populations of animals unless that's changed in the last 2 years.

no tiger's and leopards are SUB-SPECIES... but belong to the same genus.

We humans also evolved different sub species (we liken them to races). Humans are not exempt from biological evolution.

And you don't know what you're talking about. Take dogs for instance:

Not only are the genetic differences within any one dog breed greater than the differences between any of them, the differences within a single dog breed, such as Chihuahuas, is actually greater than the genetic difference between two different recognized SPECIES of animals - wolves (Canis Lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). To quote James Serpell’s The Domestic Dog:

”Recently using genetic and biochemical methods researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical . . . to other members of the genus . . . Results using mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) data . . . reveal startling similarities among canids . . . Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman Pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves . . . to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes, than there is between ethnic groups of human beings.” (pp. 32-33)

CANADIEN · August 3, 2009

canadien... You and I both know that you are very ignorant of modern biology

Coming from someone who does not know the difference between a human being and a babboon.

But if you were right (and you are not), one would have to conclude that you are a human race all of your own. :lol: :lol:

CANADIEN · August 3, 2009

Genetics has actually not that much to do with human intelligence, except in case of abnormal genes. Other factors such as education, environment, health, soci-economic conditions play as much of a role, if not actually a bigger role, than genes.

Besides, the genetic explanation fails to account for documented facts, such as the decreasing gap in score results between American Whites and Blacks in the decades that followed school desegragation. It does not explain how IQ scores tend to be higher on average among Northern Ireland Protestants than Catholics, or the difference between Ashkhenazi and other Jews.

Edited August 3, 2009 by CANADIEN

jbg · August 3, 2009

... the difference between Ashkhenazi and other Jews.

I have read authorities, which I believe, that do proffer an explanation for this. The Ashkenazi Jews have, for almost a millenia, been subject to forced moves. Those not moving often perished in the ensuing persecutions and pogroms. Thus, the ones that understood the "distant early warnings" of upcoming slaughter were the survivors, and the ones that either didn't understand those warnings or lacked the drive to heed them and clear out died.

By contrast, up until the 19th Century, most of the Sephardic Jews, living largely in Muslim lands, were not subjected to persecution (though they were subject to non-deadly and degrading discrimination). Thus, those who had a "hair trigger" response were not genetically favored. Also the fact that they were able to tolerate non-deadly though quite degrading discrimination demonstrates that they may have not been among the highest IQ individuals.

jbg · August 3, 2009

Seriously? So are you saying that there are different species of human?

Ignore the racist.

CANADIEN · August 3, 2009

I have read authorities, which I believe, that do proffer an explanation for this. The Ashkenazi Jews have, for almost a millenia, been subject to forced moves. Those not moving often perished in the ensuing persecutions and pogroms. Thus, the ones that understood the "distant early warnings" of upcoming slaughter were the survivors, and the ones that either didn't understand those warnings or lacked the drive to heed them and clear out died.
By contrast, up until the 19th Century, most of the Sephardic Jews, living largely in Muslim lands, were not subjected to persecution (though they were subject to non-deadly and degrading discrimination). Thus, those who had a "hair trigger" response were not genetically favored. Also the fact that they were able to tolerate non-deadly though quite degrading discrimination demonstrates that they may have not been among the highest IQ individuals.

Agreed down to the last sentence. The capacity to endure or even accept discrimination would result in lesser educational and social opportunities, which are factors contributing to low IQ scores. I would argue it is not the other way around.

Cato · August 3, 2009

The Ashkenazi Jews have, for almost a millenia, been subject to forced moves. Those not moving often perished in the ensuing persecutions and pogroms. Thus, the ones that understood the "distant early warnings" of upcoming slaughter were the survivors, and the ones that either didn't understand those warnings or lacked the drive to heed them and clear out died.

IMO this is plain BS. The Ashkenazic Jews are excelling over the average on many areas (this is meant statistically, it does not have relevance to any individual, neither positively nor negatively), but they did not excell particularly good at surviving. Their "distant early warnings" are a myth.

I don't profess to have any particular knowledge on this area, but my assumption is, that the over the average excelling of the Ashkenazic Jews is attributable primarily to the cultural/religious setting. Many Christian innovations to Judaism were nothing but obstacle in the individual development; Christentum put the followers in a handicapped position. Jews have not always been able to take advantage of the situation, though for example their still existent domination on the finance market is the consequence of the failure of the ideology created by the socialist named Jesus.

This cultural/religious setting supports establishing moral values (this is present in Christentum as well), as well as intellectual development (i.e. studying). However, this did not help Jews, because they concentrated their intellectual efforts on religious studies; most Jews were as dumb as all peasants. I think it started only in the middle of the 1800's, that secular educational opportunities were opened to Jews as well, and Jews recognized the value of studying much better than most others (in a time, when members of the ruling class were convinced that having beed born in the right family is good enough for every aspect of life).

From then on the special cultural/religious setting helped Jews excelling in secular areas; this advantage remains an important factor, particularly in the modern Western life, where intellectual excellence is becoming a cursing term.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Cato

jbg · August 3, 2009

Agreed down to the last sentence. The capacity to endure or even accept discrimination would result in lesser educational and social opportunities, which are factors contributing to low IQ scores. I would argue it is not the other way around.

I agree with you. The term for this kind of thing could be "feedback loop".

jbg · August 3, 2009

Their "distant early warnings" are a myth.

Dead wrong.

Riots that were not quelled by police in areas that eventually became Poland and Western Russia were among the "distant early warnings" that got many Jews to flee ahead of the eventual Holocaust.

I don't profess to have any particular knowledge on this area, but my assumption is, that the over the average excelling of the Ashkenazic Jews is attributable primarily to the cultural/religious setting. Many Christian innovations to Judaism were nothing but obstacle in the individual development; Christentum put the followers in a handicapped position.

This is so incoherent as to be impossible of response.

Jews have not always been able to take advantage of the situation, though for example their still existent domination on the finance market is the consequence of the failure of the ideology created by the socialist named Jesus.

I don't think modern Christians have shied away from free-market activites, particularly where profitable.

This cultural/religious setting supports establishing moral values (this is present in Christentum as well), as well as intellectual development (i.e. studying). However, this did not help Jews, because they concentrated their intellectual efforts on religious studies; most Jews were as dumb as all peasants.

Proof?

I think it started only in the middle of the 1800's, that secular educational opportunities were opened to Jews as well, and Jews recognized the value of studying much better than most others (in a time, when members of the ruling class were convinced that having beed born in the right family is good enough for every aspect of life).

This I agree with but I'm not sure it started that late. In Biblical times the Jews often required literacy as a condition of involvment in society.

From then on the special cultural/religious setting helped Jews excelling in secular areas; this advantage remains an important factor, particularly in the modern Western life, where intellectual excellence is becoming a cursing term.

A cursing term? Interesting but not sure what you mean.

Cato · August 4, 2009

Riots that were not quelled by police in areas that eventually became Poland and Western Russia were among the "distant early warnings" that got many Jews to flee ahead of the eventual Holocaust

Right. It requires over the average intelligence to get away, when pogroms occure more often. However, this had nothing to do with Holocaust. The Poles, Russians and Ukrainians had hated the Jews for centuries.

This is so incoherent as to be impossible of response

I noted your educational deficiency in your former posts, but I forgot it. Sorry. I guess you are from the Sephardic branch.

I don't think modern Christians have shied away from free-market activites, particularly where profitable

Did I write modern? Chrstians were not allowed to lend money for profit (interest) for centuries.

Proof?
...

This I agree with but I'm not sure it started that late. In Biblical times the Jews often required literacy as a condition of involvment in society.

Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together. Solzhenitsyn is Anti-Semite, of course, but he cites many Jewish sources.

jbg · August 4, 2009

Right. It requires over the average intelligence to get away, when pogroms occure more often. However, this had nothing to do with Holocaust. The Poles, Russians and Ukrainians had hated the Jews for centuries.

And how was this unrelated to the Holocaust, especially when the "kill percentages" of Jews vis a vis their prior numbers was actually quite a bit higher in Poland than even in Germany. Ditto western border regions of Russia.

I noted your educational deficiency in your former posts, but I forgot it. Sorry. I guess you are from the Sephardic branch.

Quite the ad hominem attack. I could use adjectives like "thumb-suckingly immature" or "inane" or "idiotic" but I choose not to.

Did I write modern? Chrstians were not allowed to lend money for profit (interest) for centuries.

Christians found ways to earn profits. Trust me.

The whole point of being able to borrow money, as you quite well know, was to earn a higher return than the interest rate being charged. If the Jews were lending money they had to have borrowers obviously.

Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together. Solzhenitsyn is Anti-Semite, of course, but he cites many Jewish sources.

Does that apply to you as well? Or are you saying you're not an anti-Anti-Semite because you are partial to murderous Arabs?

Cato · August 4, 2009

And how was this unrelated to the Holocaust, especially when the "kill percentages" of Jews vis a vis their prior numbers was actually quite a bit higher in Poland than even in Germany. Ditto western border regions of Russia

You follow a strange "logic". The "kill percentages" were higher in Poland than in Germany, i.e. it is due to German actions.

Quite the ad hominem attack. I could use adjectives like "thumb-suckingly immature" or "inane" or "idiotic" but I choose not to

Well, reading for example

No question about the Israeli Jews being much more successful than the Arabs both in war and in propaganda (and and).

So you admit your real role is as a Jew hater?

I really have serious concerns about your mental stability; that's the reason I did not answer that post at all (I did not want to be the cause of a stroke). I hope you got the foam out of your mouth in the meantime.

Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together. Solzhenitsyn is Anti-Semite, of course, but he cites many Jewish sources.

Does that apply to you as well? Or are you saying you're not an anti-Anti-Semite because you are partial to murderous Arabs?

Bad news for you: Anti-Semite and "Jew hater" uttered by such as you are not negatives to me. I am comfortable in the group of Solzhenitsyn, Carter, Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, etc.

Regarding being partial to murderous Arabs: about as much as I am to murderous Israelis.