TL;DR: The Thread

[Claeyt]

That's just scary Jorb, are you saying you don't support Democracy in any form?

I am against the rule by banks and political parties, yes.

but just general basic Democracy you're still okay with right?

[jorb]

I just recently equated it to the rule by banks and political parties, so of course I am against it. Open competition for positions of power is a bad idea in general. You can imagine the circus, maneuvering and political ***** that would go on in these here forums if developers were elected. Democracy is that same **** only on a grander scale.

[Claeyt]

I just recently equated it to the rule by banks and political parties, so of course I am against it. Open competition for positions of power is a bad idea in general. You can imagine the circus, maneuvering and political ***** that would go on in these here forums if developers were elected. Democracy is that same **** only on a grander scale.

So you're against even basic Democracy in any form. Okay good to know.

[jwhitehorn]

I just recently equated it to the rule by banks and political parties, so of course I am against it. Open competition for positions of power is a bad idea in general. You can imagine the circus, maneuvering and political ***** that would go on in these here forums if developers were elected. Democracy is that same **** only on a grander scale.

I nominate myself for 3rd Developer.

Chief PeePooKaKa
"A Developer with a Dream, A Developer you can trust"

[wormcsa]

Violence is part of Culture, it's not genetic.

I cannot believe that you are unwilling to concede that men, on average, are genetically more predisposed to violence than women.

Studies on Environment and intelligence point to environment as much more important to IQ than genetics.

This is categorically incorrect, and that belief is way outside of modern mainstream scientific thought. Again try even the most basic research before you make unsupported claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_ver ... #IQ_debate "Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. " The effect is even less in adulthood.

As I said originally, their beliefs are totally impervious to the scrutiny of actual evidence. If twin studies that show greater correlation between twins separated at birth than that of non twin siblings raised in the same household does not convince them to at least reexamine their beliefs, nothing will. Now I really am done.

[Claeyt]

This is categorically incorrect, and that belief is way outside of modern mainstream scientific thought. Again try even the most basic research before you make unsupported claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_ver ... #IQ_debate "Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. " The effect is even less in adulthood.

As I said originally, their beliefs are totally impervious to the scrutiny of actual evidence. If twin studies that show greater correlation between twins separated at birth than that of non twin siblings raised in the same household does not convince them to at least reexamine their beliefs, nothing will. Now I really am done.

It is not incorrect. They're talking about the Correlation between people in similar setting not the total amount. Early childhood environment is the deciding factor in an individuals IQ as compared to the group. Not siblings. Yes there's a genetic factor to intelligence, but Environment (Nutrition, poverty, education of parents etc..) is more important to the child's total IQ later in life.

http://voices.yahoo.com/does-environment-genetics-determine-iq-711015.html

[wormcsa]

I can't believe I am responding once again- I must have the same compulsion as the one that is making you slaughter newbies by continuing to post. First of all, your source is Sean Rooney "I recently graduated with highest honors with a bachelors degree in history and political science," and is as valid as you sourcing yourself. Notice absolutely no citations. Also please read the whole two paragraphs I linked. "Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0)." Got it? Identical twins raised in separate households are correlated at 0.74, whereas siblings raised in the same household are not correlated whatsoever. Therefore, if true, your libtard theory that IQ is determined primarily by environment is refuted full stop. If you want to disprove it, you need to do a study which shows the opposite effect- that there is greater IQ correlation between adopted siblings raised together, then twins raised apart.

Or at the very least, you could show a correlation between adopted children and their parents. And guess what? Researchers looked and didn't find one, but they did find a correlation between adopted children and their biological parents. You suggested there was such a study amongst black children with white families. There is, but yet again it does not support your liberal religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_ ... tion_Study "The studies' general findings were that the IQs of children of a particular race did not differ significantly depending on whether they were raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents of a different race." In short, your opinions are overwhelmingly not supported by the available evidence, yet you continue to believe them. Why?

[Claeyt]

I can't believe I am responding once again- I must have the same compulsion as the one that is making you slaughter newbies by continuing to post. First of all, your source is Sean Rooney "I recently graduated with highest honors with a bachelors degree in history and political science," and is as valid as you sourcing yourself. Notice absolutely no citations. Also please read the whole two paragraphs I linked. "Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0)." Got it? Identical twins raised in separate households are correlated at 0.74, whereas siblings raised in the same household are not correlated whatsoever. Therefore, if true, your libtard theory that IQ is determined primarily by environment is refuted full stop. If you want to disprove it, you need to do a study which shows the opposite effect- that there is greater IQ correlation between adopted siblings raised together, then twins raised apart.

Or at the very least, you could show a correlation between adopted children and their parents. And guess what? Researchers looked and didn't find one, but they did find a correlation between adopted children and their biological parents. You suggested there was such a study amongst black children with white families. There is, but yet again it does not support your liberal religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_ ... tion_Study "The studies' general findings were that the IQs of children of a particular race did not differ significantly depending on whether they were raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents of a different race." In short, your opinions are overwhelmingly not supported by the available evidence, yet you continue to believe them. Why?

You're citing a research study from 1976 that's been mostly disproved.

Did you even read the bottom of the page where almost all of the modern interpretations of the study proved that environmental factors confounded the study?

[MagicManICT]

Every state had Public Educational systems by the 1870's and sll the major Land Grant Colleges started in the 1840's through the 1870's. You have to remember that America went through the Industrial Revolution much later than Europe and was mostly agrarian until after the Civil War.
The Declaration of Independence was written and approved by Consensus.

Couple of corrections here...

1. The US was mostly agrarian until the 1920s, after WWI when there was MASSIVE migration from Europe and the increase in industrial and agricultural production from automation (yaa Henry Ford!!)

2. Sure, it was by consensus, but hardly a democratic consensus. It was a consensus of the leaders that formed up to write and sign it. The majority of the population was either neutral on the matter or against "civil war against the English." This is the way the political world has always worked, even under the Greeks who created the democratic system to govern themselves. Arguing anything other is just being blind to the reality of things.

Jorb is pretty much spot on about the US, but then, it's true of pretty much EVERY country/government EVER. Show me a country or governing body that is truly made up of fully indigent peoples without any influence of another conquering people. You can't, but this is how society changes, grows (and sometimes regresses), and spreads knowledge. Was what we did to the native tribes right? No, but it was a hell of a lot better than what the Israelites did according to the Bible. (They were commanded by God to put down the Canaanites and others to a man, woman, and child including all cattle, etc. I mention this only for those that never studied/read it.) Governments have also always collected taxes to move money to "where it needed to be spent." Sometimes these were wise places (building an army to defend against the <insert conquering people here>) and sometimes not so smart (tens of millions of dollars on a bridge in the US that had no purpose and never even got built... and they thought the Brooklyn Bridge was crazy! Before any of you non-US people go pointing fingers and laughing, look at your own government for idiotic expenditures and I'm sure you'll find a few. If there aren't any, it means your country is too new to have had a chance to do it.)

And like kings have done any better in the past.... Just like all things, it's a thing of Man and is flawed. Power corrupts, end of story.

@claeyt: Yeah, I remember my Freshman Psychology class from 1991 and remember the discussion on nature-nurture and the studies that were going on and had been done and even the not quite up to date text book of the time (seems like it was just printed when I took the class, so probably 5-7 years out from the absolute latest studies) had already shown from the same types of studies (identical twins studies, environmental, parental education, etc) that intelligence, and basically success in life, were as you state. Anyone else trying to say otherwise is trolling. It's like the far right arguing there's no such thing as man-made environmental change.

[wormcsa]

You're citing a research study from 1976 that's been mostly disproved.

Disproved? Where? Yes, this was not a very conclusive study- I linked the study because you seemed to believe said study supported your side when it clearly doesn't.

Did you even read the bottom of the page where almost all of the modern interpretations of the study proved that environmental factors confounded the study?

Wrong again, that is not what "almost all of modern interpretations...proved (sic.)" I suggest you yourself read the bottom of the page. Pointing to the possibility that there are remaining confounding factors in a study designed to remove as many confounding factors as possible, is not proof of the opposite. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that IQ is almost entirely genetic, barring all but the most severe cases of child abuse/neglect. If you are really interested in reading what recent science has to say on the subject, I suggest reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." Harvard Professor Pinker is hardly a reactionary. http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-M ... lank+slate

Or indeed just watch the earlier Norwegian documentary series to see how out of step your hippie ideas are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZoRihmI1Ug