it certainly looks like relationship issues.
Left skew , being on the wrong side of IQ
- Thread starter PHOENIX TRADING
- Start date
it certainly looks like relationship issues.
(spike, IQ 47)
Feel free to correct factual or logical errors you think I've made.
you haven't made any errors, they just don't like you
The experience in the other thread taught me that we all really know this is true, the question is will the radical left change their thinking about diversity, redistribution and income equality. Probably not, we know underachieving minorities won't and they are now most of the left and soon to be most of the US.
What "huge implications" should that be?
You keep attaching that "bell curve" to your posts, probably for illustrating that you're statistically intelligent despite the content of your posts. But it does not help: the curve shows that there are just as many dim-witted whites as blacks on the left side.
The social problem, if any, is intelligence of individuals and not of a race. How intelligence is distributed among races is totally meaningless for "National Govt policy". You still have to deal with individual intelligence, respectively lack of, and not with black or white race.
Here is a start.......
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html
To understand The Bell Curve's fallacy, we need to distinguish two concepts: the ordinary idea of genetic determination and the scientific concept of heritability, on which all Herrnstein's and Murray's data rely. Genetic determination is a matter of what causes a characteristic: number of toes is genetically determined because our genes cause us to have five toes. Heritability, by contrast, is a matter of what causes differences in a characteristic: heritability of number of toes is a matter of the extent to which genetic differences cause variation in number of toes (that some cats have five toes, and some have six). Heritability is, therefore, defined as a fraction: it is the ratio of genetically caused variation to total variation (including both environmental and genetic variation). Genetic determination, by contrast, is an informal and intuitive notion which lacks quantitative definition, and depends on the idea of a normal environment. A characteristic could be said to be genetically determined if it is coded in and caused by the genes and bound to develop in a normal environment. Consequently, whereas genetic determination in a single person makes sense - my brown hair color is genetically determined - heritability makes sense only relative to a population in which individuals differ from one another - you can't ask "What's the heritability of my IQ?"
REALLY?
Grasping at straws like a drowning man, and on your first post too!
And here I thought you were a super intelligent liberal (ie wayyy smarter than me).
When was the last time you filled out a federal form that did not ask you your race if it had not already been established?
As a matter of fact find one, "just 1 agency" of the Federal Govt that does not record your race.
Then my friend you can possibly show " How intelligence is distributed among races is totally meaningless" for that agencies policies.
I'm sorry bozo,"Here is a start" just won't cut it, as your contribution to the discussion, try again.
If you will examine my OP you will find no links.
There's a reason for that, everything, grammatical errors and all were derived from my general knowledge on the subject.
No piece of information* was specifically quoted, or linked: because I didn't borrow the words from someone else and pawn them off as my own.
I ask all posters ,If you want to submit a quote or link that's fine, but please let that information back up your argument or serve as an adjunct or reference for your arguments "made in your own words".
PLEASE DON'T BE SO LAZY AS TO THINK A LINK OR QUOTE MAKES YOUR ARGUMENT FOR YOU. (IOW if you cannot even summarize the information of someone else's work, and are relying exclusively on 'cut n paste" to make your points: don't even bother. There's no exchange of ideas there nor proof of even the remotest competence of the information attempting to be conveyed ).
*The graphic is not my own creation, but it's just a generic visual hint at the gap being discussed. I'm sure I can find lots more graphs depicting the same general information.
Awww did I just institute an intellectual Poll tax on rcg?
Rcg is not really all that stupid compared to his cohorts.Quote from pspr:
Be careful with these sorts of threads. Politicians might decide to implement the Affirmative Action Brain Transplant at birth for black babies if blacks start complaining about how stupid they are.
RCG could be the poster child for their cause.
He's just a racist, which in turn makes one LOOK STUPID.
I don't know if I am wayyy smarter than you, but being a super intelligent liberal is probably not required for that.Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
REALLY?
Grasping at straws like a drowning man, and on your first post too!
And here I thought you were a super intelligent liberal (ie wayyy smarter than me).
When was the last time you filled out a federal form that did not ask you your race if it had not already been established?
As a matter of fact find one, "just 1 agency" of the Federal Govt that does not record your race.
Then my friend you can possibly show " How intelligence is distributed among races is totally meaningless" for that agencies policies.
Federal forms that ask for your race do that for statistical or identification purposes, but certainly not for determining your intelligence.