Koolchi wrote: "The eye through which you see God
is the same eye through which He sees you." Jalal
al-din Rumi

Hammes wrote: "The eye through which you see God
is the blind one."

Skipper shot back: "That's your eye. That's why you're
so" angry." Oh!

Hammes wrote: "The "blind" eye is your belly button."

Skipper: "You didn't even get your suppository right."

Hammer then advises him to start "Kissing frogs into
Princes" or something. Well,

This whole argument seems to have
devolved into a polemic of I's and others.

Very well: If God has eyes
He has to have an eyebrow.
Otherwise He'll get sweat in His eye;
and that's not just any sweat, that's
God-awful sweat.

Why would God need an eye?
A face? And yet everybody who sees God
says he's got a face! Well, if God has
a face, He probably has an ass (they just
go together: like IN and OUT).

And if God has an ass then He probably has
a lot of guts. Which means shit, of course.
And, most troubling of all, if God's been
shitting since "the dawn of time" (or The Sunset
of Body-odour), does He use toilet paper?

IF HE DOESN'T ... might we have just discovered
GOD's curious NEED for people here--!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lot of shit-eaters amongst us folk. (Also, why
are black people "black people" but white folk
are just "white folks?") I don't remember
anywhere in the Bible God instructing people
or white folks on the use of toilet paper.

But, I did find a copy of the ORIGINAL
Ten Commandments (the one Moses broke
over the heads of the Israelites when he
came down from Mount Ararat). Here it is,
glued back together after a drinking bout:

1) You can have as many other gods as you want.
    You don't even have to worship me. I'm the god
    of the Universe, not the god of yo momma.

2) No, do not chop off the head of some poor MoeFokr
    who happens to draw what looks like a stick figure
    of God. Have some humanity, for God's sakes.

3) If you couldn't say, "Jesus Christ!" every time
    a bus runs over some old lady... I'd question
    your mental health. There are worse things you
    could do.

4) You bring more than 3 kids into this world...
    I better see you working you ass on Sundays
    if you don't wanna meet my business partner
    Satan Boy.

5) Honor your parents if they deserve it (and you
    can afford it). Otherwise tho the bastards into
    the nearest state institution you can find. (They
    hire a hooker as your babysitter so they can go
    see Les Mis, just feed'em to the dogs.)

6) Kill everyone, except those who do not deserve it.
    You see some perv on a kid and you do not kill
    the bastard, you gonna have trouble with me. (Kill
    the perv, not the kid--Man, you gotta immunize
    yourself against every moron these days!)

7) Do NOT institute marriage (it's just gonna get you
    into all kinds of troubles). Trust me on this one.
    Let love be your guide. (Mate-swapping helps
    my designer diseases keep down your inevitable
    over-population. That's WHY I designed them.)

8) The basis of civilization is a sound tax system.
    Therefore, don't come to me crying about this
    guy stole this from you and that guy stole that--!
    Read my lips: Stealing IS "the basis of
    civilization." Grow up!

9) Now, you can hit a guy over the head with a
    big rock, and maybe kill him. Or you can accuse
    him of having touched your little daughter, and
    teach him a good lesson. Use your judgement.

10) Listen to me: Consumerism is what drives
      the advance of civilization. Anybody tells you
      different, kill him. Or, at least get your
      little daughter to accuse him of something.


It appears that what God originally wanted was a
general humanity, a universal civilization. But if you
examine the subsequent revision/reconstruction of
the TABLETS by Moses & Co., what THEY were after
was more along the lines of an exclusive "religion"
which THEY and not God might "manage." It calls
into question whether the whole Moses-breaks-the
-original-tablets-because-he-got-pissed thing
maybe wasn't just staged in order to do the re-write.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.


RE:

Mike Huckabee's Magical Beliefs

    DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Republican presidential
    candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist
    preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical
    Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if
    creationism should be taught in public schools.
    Huckabee -- who raised his hand at a debate last
    May when asked which candidates disbelieved the
    theory of evolution -- asked this time why there
    is such a fascination with his beliefs.

Maybe because if he believes God has told him he
should be the instrument to bring about The End of
The World ... maybe we might want to know that...?

    ''I believe God created the heavens and the
    Earth,'' ''I wasn't there when he did it, so how
    he did it, I don't know,'' Huckabee said. But he
    expressed frustration that he is asked about it so
    often, arguing with the questioner that it
    ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views
    are.

I wish somebody might ask Hucklebuck whether
he believes in Leprechauns. And if he doesn't,
could he then explain why he believes in some
supernatural creatures and not in others... because
this has always baffled me: It seems to me that if I
believed in any supernatural creature I would
believe in them all. After all, "One magical rabbit is
just as good as every other magical rabbit." And,
certainly a lot many more people have seen and
talked with leprechauns than with gods!

  About the only people who still talk with God
  these days are those preachers who say things
  like, "Me and God were in the Jacuzzi the other
  day and He said to me: 'Tell my people to give you
  all their money so you can build My House... where
  in I will dwell when I return to earth. And,
  meanwhile, of course, you can live in there until
  I return and have the use on my BMW and shit--"

Now, why anyone would stop at believing in just some
magical creatures and not in as many as are imagined
is a profound mystery to me. There are photographs
of pixies, millions have been bitten by werewolves
AND vampires, thousands of Irishmen drink with their
Leprechauns in pubs every day, so why this refusal
to go all the way, baby? Strange, very strange.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

***************************************
On Dec 5, 7:57 pm, "Doorman"
 wrote:

> Just the fact there are extinct animals, and that
> there are multiple variations within species, proves
> evolution is real.  It may well have started by
> intervention of a force foreign to us, but plants
> and animals have evolved.

You're wasting your time: The superstitious
do not understand the difference between
"proofs" and "beliefs." Look at the following
quote:

>    You appear to believe in the theory of
>    evolution. How can you then not believe
>    in all theories, including the theory of
>    creationism?

You can say to such persons: "'Beliefs' don't
require 'proofs.'" But they will just fire back
that 'proofs' require 'belief.' And then you will
get into some innate/insane argument which
will only serve to prove that while it is possible
to argue the facts, it's pointless to argue with
persons who literally can/and sometimes do
believe anything/nothing strictly according to
their will or lack of same, or mischievousness.

Pray that we shall 'evolve' a better educational
system out of the fear to not be left (alongside
the wretched Muslims) behind by the unforgiving
advance of civilization.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.


.

NYT
December 9, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
All Brains Are the Same Color
By RICHARD E. NISBETT
Ann Arbor, Mich.

JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" and its citizens
because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their
intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not
really."

Dr. Watson's remarks created a huge stir because they implied that
blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy
resulted in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory. But was he right? Is there a genetic difference between
blacks and whites that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less
intelligent?

The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in a
1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a
psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen
maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and
whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that
could never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of
the evidence. And others who later made the same argument -- Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray in "The Bell Curve," in 1994, for
example, and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on
Slate -- have made the same mistake.

In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in
I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.

The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80
percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most
estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on
studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a
substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very
low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent
research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means
that for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to
bring about increases in I.Q.

In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells us
nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a
trait is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants),
modifiability can also be great (think of the difference growing
conditions can make).

Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that
brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have
smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men
and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and
whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic
anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes -- and hence brain
sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected
relatives.

Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much
more direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25
percent of the genes in the American black population are European,
meaning that the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent
African to mostly European. If European intelligence genes are
superior, then blacks who have relatively more European genes ought to
have higher I.Q.'s than those who have more African genes. But it
turns out that skin color and "negroidness" of features -- both
measures of the degree of a black person's European ancestry -- are
only weakly associated with I.Q. (even though we might well expect a
moderately high association due to the social advantages of such
features).

During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered
children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100
percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage.
Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers
were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black
fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.

If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the
smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a
group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in
the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their
parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater
degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.

Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree
to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays
show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q.
Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high
intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin
than other blood groups.

The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a
study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted
by white parents had lower I.Q.'s than those of mixed-race children
adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the
study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been
adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and
later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.

A superior adoption study -- and one not discussed by the hereditarians
-- was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist
Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by
middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference
in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr.
Moore's finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.'s 13
points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The
environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not
as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class
whites.

Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what
factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western
Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College
tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to
learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had
substantially more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but
when participants were tested on their ability to learn new words,
either from dictionary definitions or by learning their meaning in
context, the blacks did just as well as the whites.

Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to
recognize similarities and better facility with analogies -- when
solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more
likely to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of
reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to
blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior
knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it
was prior knowledge only that differed.

What do we know about the effects of environment?

That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-
called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in
New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole,
I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone,
it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over
such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the
result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce
changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also
produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.

In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-
year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30
years -- a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than
the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math
improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.

Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy
to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic
achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little
time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has
environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a
society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop
their minds.

Richard E. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of
Michigan, is the author of "The Geography of Thought: How Asians and
Westerners Think Differently and Why."

Lance wrote:
> 
> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>
I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score 
the same.

On 9 Dec, 12:30, Lance  wrote:
> NYT
> December 9, 2007
> Op-Ed Contributor
> All Brains Are the Same Color
> By RICHARD E. NISBETT
> Ann Arbor, Mich.
>
> JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was
> "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" and its citizens
> because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their
> intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not
> really."
>
> Dr. Watson's remarks created a huge stir because they implied that
> blacks were genetically inferior to whites, and the controversy
> resulted in his resignation as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor
> Laboratory. But was he right? Is there a genetic difference between
> blacks and whites that condemns blacks in perpetuity to be less
> intelligent?
>
> The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in a
> 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a
> psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen
> maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and
> whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that
> could never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of
> the evidence. And others who later made the same argument -- Richard
> Herrnstein and Charles Murray in "The Bell Curve," in 1994, for
> example, and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on
> Slate -- have made the same mistake.
>
> In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in
> I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.
>
> The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80
> percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most
> estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on
> studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a
> substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very
> low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent
> research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means
> that for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to
> bring about increases in I.Q.
>
> In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells us
> nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a
> trait is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants),
> modifiability can also be great (think of the difference growing
> conditions can make).
>
> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that
> brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have
> smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men
> and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and
> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic
> anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes -- and hence brain
> sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected
> relatives.
>
> Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much
> more direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25
> percent of the genes in the American black population are European,
> meaning that the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent
> African to mostly European. If European intelligence genes are
> superior, then blacks who have relatively more European genes ought to
> have higher I.Q.'s than those who have more African genes. But it
> turns out that skin color and "negroidness" of features -- both
> measures of the degree of a black person's European ancestry -- are
> only weakly associated with I.Q. (even though we might well expect a
> moderately high association due to the social advantages of such
> features).
>
> During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered
> children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100
> percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage.
> Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers
> were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black
> fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.
>
> If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the
> smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a
> group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in
> the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their
> parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater
> degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.
>
> Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree
> to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays
> show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q.
> Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high
> intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin
> than other blood groups.
>
> The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a
> study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted
> by white parents had lower I.Q.'s than those of mixed-race children
> adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the
> study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been
> adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and
> later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.
>
> A superior adoption study -- and one not discussed by the hereditarians
> -- was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist
> Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by
> middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference
> in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr.
> Moore's finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.'s 13
> points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The
> environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not
> as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class
> whites.
>
> Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what
> factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western
> Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College
> tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to
> learn and reason with, words and concepts. The whites had
> substantially more knowledge of the various words and concepts, but
> when participants were tested on their ability to learn new words,
> either from dictionary definitions or by learning their meaning in
> context, the blacks did just as well as the whites.
>
> Whites showed better comprehension of sayings, better ability to
> recognize similarities and better facility with analogies -- when
> solutions required knowledge of words and concepts that were more
> likely to be known to whites than to blacks. But when these kinds of
> reasoning were tested with words and concepts known equally well to
> blacks and whites, there were no differences. Within each race, prior
> knowledge predicted learning and reasoning, but between the races it
> was prior knowledge only that differed.
>
> What do we know about the effects of environment?
>
> That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-
> called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in
> New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole,
> I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone,
> it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over
> such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the
> result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce
> changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also
> produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.
>
> In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-
> year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30
> years -- a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than
> the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of
> Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math
> improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.
>
> Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy
> to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic
> achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little
> time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has
> environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a
> society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop
> their minds.
>
> Richard E. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of
> Michigan, is the author of "The Geography of Thought: How Asians and
> Westerners Think Differently and Why."


Given Watson's claim, this article is mildly amusing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece

On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>
> > whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>
> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> the same.

Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?

Dave

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> Lance wrote:
> >
> > whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> >
> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> the same.

Actually much study has been devoted to sex differences in IQ and the
components of IQ.

Some information can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>> Lance wrote:
>>
>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
>> the same.
> 
> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
> 
The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but, 
essentially, it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ 
tests and this was a major premise of the article.

"Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>>> Lance wrote:
>>>
>>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
>>> the same.
>>
>> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
>>
> The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but, essentially,
> it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ tests and this was
> a major premise of the article.

As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is given
as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of reasoning which
seems to run as follows:

Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
differential is indirect.

At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
I.Q. differential is misleading.

Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
differential is indirect and misleading.

Philip wrote:
> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>>>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
>>>> the same.
>>> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
>>>
>> The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but, essentially,
>> it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ tests and this was
>> a major premise of the article.
> 
> As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is given
> as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of reasoning which
> seems to run as follows:
> 
> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> differential is indirect.
> 
> At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> I.Q. differential is misleading.
> 
> Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> differential is indirect and misleading.
> 
I agree that that seems to be the line of reasoning. The premise that 
there is no genetic basis to sex differences in IQ is important to this 
argument. It is so important to the author (as he sees his argument) 
that he is misleading in quoting it. He appeals claims that men and 
women score the same when this is simply not true. Their scores differ 
in the ways pointed to by the article in wikipaedia that was mentioned.

So, I agree, it may not be a major premise in the argument, but it was a 
major one in the article.

Philip  wrote:

> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> >>> Lance wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> >>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> >>> the same.
> >>
> >> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
> >>
> > The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but, essentially,
> > it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ tests and this was
> > a major premise of the article.
> 
> As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is given
> as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of reasoning which
> seems to run as follows:
> 
> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> differential is indirect.
> 
> At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> I.Q. differential is misleading.
> 
> Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> differential is indirect and misleading.

The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)

But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
Nature is ever parsimonious.

Is 6 identified genes direct enough?

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Dave Smith  wrote:

> 
> Given Watson's claim, this article is mildly amusing:
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece

Indeed, time was it was blood groups that led doctors to extrapolate how
many kids are not their 'father's'. I expect all sorts of interesting
things will come out, like groups with long enmities finding out they
are closer to each other than to anyone else.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Philip  wrote:
> > "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> >news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > >> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> > >>> Lance wrote:
>
> > >>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> > >>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> > >>> the same.
>
> > >> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
>
> > > The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but, essentially,
> > > it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ tests and this was
> > > a major premise of the article.
>
> > As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is given
> > as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of reasoning which
> > seems to run as follows:
>
> > Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> > differential is indirect.
>
> > At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> > I.Q. differential is misleading.
>
> > Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> > differential is indirect and misleading.
>
> The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
> has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
> six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
> intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
> about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
> of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
>
> But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
> expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
> has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
> building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
> Nature is ever parsimonious.
>
> Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
>
> Peter
> --
> Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a countrywww.the-brights.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
homes and poor schools.

Lance

On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Philip  wrote:
> > "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> >news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > >> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> > >>> Lance wrote:
>
> > >>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> > >>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> > >>> the same.
>
> > >> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
>
> > > The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but, essentially,
> > > it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ tests and this was
> > > a major premise of the article.
>
> > As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is given
> > as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of reasoning which
> > seems to run as follows:
>
> > Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> > differential is indirect.
>
> > At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> > I.Q. differential is misleading.
>
> > Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> > differential is indirect and misleading.
>
> The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
> has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
> six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
> intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
> about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
> of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
>
> But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
> expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
> has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
> building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
> Nature is ever parsimonious.
>
> Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
>
> Peter
> --
> Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a countrywww.the-brights.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A number of genes contribute to intelligence. OK. But does your source
show that black people have inferior versions of these genes or lack
them, and white people have superior versions or possess them (as
opposed to the lack of them in blac people)? You would need something
like the above to make the claim that black people are genetically
less intelligent than white people.

Lance

On 9 Dec, 12:30, Lance  wrote:
> NYT
> December 9, 2007
> Op-Ed Contributor
> All Brains Are the Same Color
> By RICHARD E. NISBETT
> Ann Arbor, Mich.
>
> JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was
> "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" and its citizens
> because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their
> intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not
> really."

Check out this morning's 'Start the Week' on Radio 4. A chap on there
pointed out that IQ scores were 50 (!) points less 100 years ago, on
average, in England than they are today. There was good discussion on
IQ measuring abstract reasoning powers, but not concrete reasoning
powers. (It was also quite amusing. One very distinguished historian
on the panel suggested his IQ results came out marginally above those
of a chimp :-) I was left with the impression that IQ tests are a
waste of time. Anyway, most people in any society can understand
democracy, basic decency, and how to run a business. And that's mostly
what Africa needs. All we need to do is help out, stop exploiting
Africa, and stop giving support to characters like Mugabe. Then the
prospects are, surely, no more gloomy than for the rest of us (which
are pretty gloomy...)

Peter Ashby wrote:
> Dave Smith  wrote:
> 
>> Given Watson's claim, this article is mildly amusing:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece
> 
> Indeed, time was it was blood groups that led doctors to extrapolate how
> many kids are not their 'father's'. I expect all sorts of interesting
> things will come out, like groups with long enmities finding out they
> are closer to each other than to anyone else.
> 
But we know that already! There is nothing like being neighbours to get 
a good long-term feud going - look at the Greeks/Turks, English/Scots, 
French/Germans, Jews/Arabs, Koreans/Chinese, Chinese/Japanese etc. etc. 
Long term neighbours are much more likely to be closely related that 
very distant people - certainly before the invention of mass 
long-distance travel anyway.

Lance wrote:
> 
> 
> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
> homes and poor schools.
> 
I don't think anybody has any doubt about that! The doubt seems to be 
about the genetic component for some reason.

Both are clearly vital determiners of the result (one good hammer on the 
head from the environment would upset the best of all possible genetic 
plans).

Lance  wrote:

> On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> > Philip  wrote:
> > > "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> > >news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > >> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> > > >>> Lance wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> > > >>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> > > >>> the same.
> >
> > > >> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
> >
> > > > The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but,
> > > > essentially, it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ
> > > > tests and this was a major premise of the article.
> >
> > > As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is
> > > given as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of
> > > reasoning which seems to run as follows:
> >
> > > Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> > > differential is indirect.
> >
> > > At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis
> > > for the I.Q. differential is misleading.
> >
> > > Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> > > I.Q. differential is indirect and misleading.
> >
> > The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
> > has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
> > six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
> > intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
> > about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
> > of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
> >
> > But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
> > expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
> > has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
> > building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
> > Nature is ever parsimonious.
> >
> > Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
> >
> 
> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
> homes and poor schools.
> 
Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
poor job security. 

So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
intelligent to be a scientist...

Peter


-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Lance  wrote:

> On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >
> > The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
> > has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
> > six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
> > intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
> > about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
> > of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
> >
> > But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
> > expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
> > has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
> > building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
> > Nature is ever parsimonious.
> >
> > Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
> >
> 
> A number of genes contribute to intelligence. OK. But does your source
> show that black people have inferior versions of these genes or lack
> them, and white people have superior versions or possess them (as
> opposed to the lack of them in blac people)? You would need something
> like the above to make the claim that black people are genetically
> less intelligent than white people.
> 
The answer is we don't yet know, and we will need the rest of the 49%
properly quantified to even ask such questions properly. As well as
better ways of measuring intelligence than IQ.

The problem is that there are those who would not want the research to
be done. They seem to be those who are currently shouting the loudest
about the variation being only environmentally determined. Intelligence
seems to be the last bastion of the old nature vs nurture debate.

I bet the answer will be that different populations of humans (not
necessarily corresponding to races as we define them) will have
different mixes of alleles for the relevant genes and further that this
will give us a basis for discovering and quantifying different forms of
intelligence. 

Then we will be able to rehash all the arguments we are having about sex
differences. Pointing out the statistical fallacy of those who think the
distributions of intelligence among the sexes mean no women can do
maths. Though it might explain part of the reason why there are not very
many female maths professors.

These conclusions will be unpalatable to some, but we should not shy
away from the truth just for that reason.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:

> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Dave Smith  wrote:
> > 
> >> Given Watson's claim, this article is mildly amusing:
> >>
> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece
> > 
> > Indeed, time was it was blood groups that led doctors to extrapolate how
> > many kids are not their 'father's'. I expect all sorts of interesting
> > things will come out, like groups with long enmities finding out they
> > are closer to each other than to anyone else.
> > 
> But we know that already! There is nothing like being neighbours to get
> a good long-term feud going - look at the Greeks/Turks, English/Scots,
> French/Germans, Jews/Arabs, Koreans/Chinese, Chinese/Japanese etc. etc.
> Long term neighbours are much more likely to be closely related that 
> very distant people - certainly before the invention of mass 
> long-distance travel anyway.

Except that in the absence of genome sequencing it was always possible
to ignore that fact. Genealogies can be fudged, people can be airbrushed
from history.

Of course the facts will never stand in the way of those who truly
believe otherwise. After all we still have creationists.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Peter Ashby wrote:
> Lance  wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>>> Philip  wrote:
>>>> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
>>>> news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>>>>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>>>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>>>>>>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
>>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
>>>>> The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but,
>>>>> essentially, it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ
>>>>> tests and this was a major premise of the article.
>>>> As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is
>>>> given as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of
>>>> reasoning which seems to run as follows:
>>>> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
>>>> differential is indirect.
>>>> At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis
>>>> for the I.Q. differential is misleading.
>>>> Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
>>>> I.Q. differential is indirect and misleading.
>>> The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
>>> has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
>>> six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
>>> intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
>>> about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
>>> of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
>>>
>>> But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
>>> expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
>>> has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
>>> building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
>>> Nature is ever parsimonious.
>>>
>>> Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
>>>
>> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
>> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
>> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
>> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
>> homes and poor schools.
>>
> Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
> The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
> generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
> lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
> poor job security. 
> 
> So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
> poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
> intelligent to be a scientist...
> 
Or quite a few other options!

I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity. 
Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even 
if many in it are from the working classes.

Peter Ashby wrote:
> Lance  wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> > > Philip  wrote:
> > > > "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> > > >news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> > > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > >> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> > > > >>> Lance wrote:
> > >
> > > > >>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> > > > >>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> > > > >>> the same.
> > >
> > > > >> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
> > >
> > > > > The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but,
> > > > > essentially, it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ
> > > > > tests and this was a major premise of the article.
> > >
> > > > As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is
> > > > given as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of
> > > > reasoning which seems to run as follows:
> > >
> > > > Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> > > > differential is indirect.
> > >
> > > > At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis
> > > > for the I.Q. differential is misleading.
> > >
> > > > Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> > > > I.Q. differential is indirect and misleading.
> > >
> > > The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
> > > has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
> > > six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
> > > intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
> > > about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
> > > of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
> > >
> > > But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
> > > expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
> > > has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
> > > building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
> > > Nature is ever parsimonious.
> > >
> > > Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
> > >
> >
> > I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
> > the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
> > gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
> > genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
> > homes and poor schools.
> >
> Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
> The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
> generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
> lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
> poor job security.
>
> So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
> poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
> intelligent to be a scientist...
>
> Peter
>
>
> --
> Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
> www.the-brights.net

I don't think the UK has many poor people. Come to Africa and I'll
show you poor people. In anycase, the greatest gains in IQ have
occurred in the poorer sections of the American population according
to the above article. And I'm pretty certain that there are more
really poor people in the US than in the UK.

Lance

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Lance  wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >>> Philip  wrote:
> >>>> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
> >>>> news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
> >>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> Lance wrote:
> >>>>>>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
> >>>>>>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
> >>>>>>> the same.
> >>>>>> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
> >>>>> The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but,
> >>>>> essentially, it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ
> >>>>> tests and this was a major premise of the article.
> >>>> As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is
> >>>> given as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of
> >>>> reasoning which seems to run as follows:
> >>>> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
> >>>> differential is indirect.
> >>>> At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis
> >>>> for the I.Q. differential is misleading.
> >>>> Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
> >>>> I.Q. differential is indirect and misleading.
> >>> The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
> >>> has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
> >>> six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
> >>> intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
> >>> about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
> >>> of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
> >>>
> >>> But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
> >>> expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
> >>> has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
> >>> building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
> >>> Nature is ever parsimonious.
> >>>
> >>> Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
> >>>
> >> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
> >> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
> >> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
> >> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
> >> homes and poor schools.
> >>
> > Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
> > The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
> > generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
> > lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
> > poor job security.
> >
> > So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
> > poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
> > intelligent to be a scientist...
> >
> Or quite a few other options!
>
> I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity.
> Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even
> if many in it are from the working classes.

A touch of prejudice, prehaps?

Lance

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> Lance wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
> > the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
> > gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
> > genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
> > homes and poor schools.
> >
> I don't think anybody has any doubt about that! The doubt seems to be
> about the genetic component for some reason.
>
> Both are clearly vital determiners of the result (one good hammer on the
> head from the environment would upset the best of all possible genetic
> plans).

So disingenuous! Of course the doubt is about the genetic component
for very good reason. That supposed contribution (or its lack) was the
basis for murdering people, for castrating people, for sterilizing
people, for including such inferior people in medical trials without
their informed consent, and many other abuses of human rights.
Judgeing fromwhat I read about some groups in the USA the potential
for hate crimes based on claims of genetic inferiority is still  very
real.

Lance

Lance  wrote:

> Peter Ashby wrote:

> > Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
> > The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
> > generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
> > lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
> > poor job security.
> >
> > So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
> > poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
> > intelligent to be a scientist...
> >
> 
> I don't think the UK has many poor people. Come to Africa and I'll
> show you poor people. In anycase, the greatest gains in IQ have
> occurred in the poorer sections of the American population according
> to the above article. And I'm pretty certain that there are more
> really poor people in the US than in the UK.
> 
OK Lance just blithely ignore my obvious point and instead answer a
question I wasn't asking. Did I say poor people? no. I said 'working
class' and I said 'poorer sections of society'. I also clearly stated I
was talking about the UK. So the fact that people in Africa or Asia or
the Pacific Islands or Mauritius or just about anywhere else are poorer
than the people here is absofuckinglutely irrelevant. Have you got that
or do you want to go off on another smug, feelgood tangent?

Peter


-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:

> Peter Ashby wrote:

> > Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
> > The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
> > generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
> > lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
> > poor job security. 
> > 
> > So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
> > poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
> > intelligent to be a scientist...
> > 
> Or quite a few other options!
> 
> I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity.
> Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even
> if many in it are from the working classes.

Which if you read it is my point. The largest section of the working
scientists here are from working class backgrounds. All but one of the
people I have worked for were at university on scholarships. They had
dragged themselves up by passing the eleven plus and doing well aat
grammar school. Not by being sent to public school followed by Oxbridge.
That is one reason why in biology at least (by far the most numerous
science these days) the dress code is so shabby. 

Yet they send their kids to good schools and counsel them not to do
science.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Lance wrote:
> 
> Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
>> Peter Ashby wrote:
>>> Lance  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 10, 10:53 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>>>>> Philip  wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:8badnYcIboxL08HanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@saix.net...
>>>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec, 14:15, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests.
>>>>>>>>> I thought that IQ tests were adjusted for sex because they don't score
>>>>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>>>> Men do better on some components of 'g' and worse on other components?
>>>>>>> The article Lance has pointed to gives plenty of detail, but,
>>>>>>> essentially, it is not true that men and women score the same on IQ
>>>>>>> tests and this was a major premise of the article.
>>>>>> As far as I can see it forms no part of any explicit argument but is
>>>>>> given as justification for the minor premise in an implied line of
>>>>>> reasoning which seems to run as follows:
>>>>>> Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q.
>>>>>> differential is indirect.
>>>>>> At least one example of indirect evidence suggesting a genetic basis
>>>>>> for the I.Q. differential is misleading.
>>>>>> Therefore nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the
>>>>>> I.Q. differential is indirect and misleading.
>>>>> The week before last's New Scientist had an item about research which
>>>>> has found a number of genes which contribute to intelligence. There are
>>>>> six identified which together account for 1 per cent of the variation in
>>>>> intelligence. The article mentions that twin etc studies have shown that
>>>>> about half of the variation is down to the environment. So we have 49%
>>>>> of the genetic variation to find yet ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But as the article suggests, a very large proportion of our genomes are
>>>>> expressed at some time in our brains. The one thing the genome project
>>>>> has taught us is that we didn't create large numbers of new genes for
>>>>> building our amazing brains. We just reused old ones in new roles,
>>>>> Nature is ever parsimonious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is 6 identified genes direct enough?
>>>>>
>>>> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
>>>> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
>>>> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
>>>> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
>>>> homes and poor schools.
>>>>
>>> Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
>>> The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
>>> generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
>>> lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
>>> poor job security.
>>>
>>> So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
>>> poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
>>> intelligent to be a scientist...
>>>
>> Or quite a few other options!
>>
>> I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity.
>> Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even
>> if many in it are from the working classes.
> 
> A touch of prejudice, prehaps?
> 
In the UK there is a lot of prejudice against engineering particularly, 
yes. The common image of an engineer is of somebody covered in oil 
wielding a large spanner.

The sciences are a bit different. I think that images vary depending on 
field to some extent - even though most people are not aware of any 
field of science apart from 'mad'.

Partly this is a matter of history. Early scientists had to be 
self-funded, so were wealthy people from the leisured classes.

'Boffins' were highly regarded during and after the war, even if they 
had a possibly unwelcome boost with Harold Wilson talking about the 
'white hot heat of technology'.

They have never had quite the status of traditional middle class 
occupations like solicitor, doctor, banker or teacher, it is true, which 
might be the point Peter has been making. I don't think, though, that 
they have ever had the lowly status of 'engineer'.

I'd expect aspirational and clever working class children would go for 
the sciences because there is less room for opinion, so you can't really 
be marked up or down because of your background, something that could 
easily happen in the humanities.

Lance wrote:
> 
> Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
>> Lance wrote:
>>>
>>> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
>>> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
>>> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
>>> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
>>> homes and poor schools.
>>>
>> I don't think anybody has any doubt about that! The doubt seems to be
>> about the genetic component for some reason.
>>
>> Both are clearly vital determiners of the result (one good hammer on the
>> head from the environment would upset the best of all possible genetic
>> plans).
> 
> So disingenuous! Of course the doubt is about the genetic component
> for very good reason. That supposed contribution (or its lack) was the
> basis for murdering people, for castrating people, for sterilizing
> people, for including such inferior people in medical trials without
> their informed consent, and many other abuses of human rights.
>
I don't see any of the above as sound reasons for casting doubt on the 
genetic component. The Rwandans managed to kill each other in very large 
numbers without any appeal to 'science', and I think in the other cases 
you mention, appeal to 'science' is not genuine, simply a mask for 
existing prejudice.

You're probably right, though, those are some of the reasons people use 
as an excuse to cast doubt on a genetic component.

It is daft, though, assumes that people are more stupid than they in 
fact are, and, ultimately, puts scientific research into disrepute. 
People spend a lot of time being fascinated by hereditary differences - 
listen to a few women around a baby for not very long and you'll hear 
plenty of remarks about it. It is clearly important for all sorts of 
reasons, particularly, in the latter case, establishing the legitimacy 
of paternity.

When people know all that from their daily experience and then hear some 
scientist coming up with the blank slate argument, they know it is bullshit.
 >
 > Judgeing fromwhat I read about some groups in the USA the potential
 > for hate crimes based on claims of genetic inferiority is still  very
 > real.
 >
I watched the film 'Rendition' last evening, and it made it very clear 
that there was no reason whatsoever for any scientific argument to have 
groups in Yankland abusing other people!

I'm not sure what this term 'hate crime' is really supposed to mean. It 
is very popular in some circles. New 'error of judgement' Labour has 
spent lots of time daemonising various sectors of the population with 
rafts of legislation against 'hate crimes' that appear quite 
unnecessary. If you attack somebody, causing them physical damage, then 
there are laws that have been around for centuries to deal with the 
matter, as with other crimes. It can be assumed by any vaguely 
intelligent person that, if you do commit a crime against somebody it is 
because you don't hold them in much regard and, if it isn't strongly 
motivated by material gain, it is likely that you actually don't like 
them very much. Why you don't like them isn't really an issue.

Inventing the idea of a 'hate crime' seems to be a move towards trying 
to have a real Thought Police to persecute people for imagined 'thought 
crimes' because a 'hate crime' is simply a normal crime, as I say above, 
where an imagined 'thought crime' against some currently fashionable 
group is added to it as an aggravating factor.

It is bollocks. Unless there is some quite different meaning to it or 
reason for having a 'hate crime' defined.

Peter Ashby wrote:
> 
>>
>> I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity.
>> Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even
>> if many in it are from the working classes.
> 
> Which if you read it is my point. The largest section of the working
> scientists here are from working class backgrounds. All but one of the
> people I have worked for were at university on scholarships. They had
> dragged themselves up by passing the eleven plus and doing well aat
> grammar school. Not by being sent to public school followed by Oxbridge.
> That is one reason why in biology at least (by far the most numerous
> science these days) the dress code is so shabby. 
 >
OK, so we're saying the same thing.

Are you sure about the dress code? Isn't that governed more by fashion 
these days? Doctors look a lot shabbier than they did a quarter of a 
century ago. Lawyers too, but I agree that they still tend to dress up, 
I think that is more connected to the need to keep up an appearance of 
competence though - lawyers need more bolstering of the ego.

There was a good line in the brilliant film 'Spider' (2002). Sadly I 
can't find the line itself, but a schizophrenic was asked why he wore so 
many shirts at the same time (schizophrenics are inclined to wearing 
many layers of clothing, it's almost a sign of the condition) - Spider 
explained that the smaller the man inside, the greater the need for 
clothes outside (or words to that effect).

This might well be a factor with lawyers. Politicians tend to be snappy 
dressers too, quite probably for the same reason.

There is, on the imdb site entry on 'Spider', a funny, but cruel, 
description of the film as 'the most depressing Mr. Bean episode ever'. 
It's most unkindly apt.

Academics are generally given to the shabby. It's partly an affectation 
of 'eccentricity', and a matter of fashion, but also, probably, a matter 
of making a virtue out of the necessity enforced by low salaries.
> 
> Yet they send their kids to good schools and counsel them not to do
> science.
> 
Well, you can understand that!

Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> 
> 
> There was a good line in the brilliant film 'Spider' (2002). Sadly I 
> can't find the line itself, but a schizophrenic was asked why he wore so 
> many shirts at the same time (schizophrenics are inclined to wearing 
> many layers of clothing, it's almost a sign of the condition) - Spider 
> explained that the smaller the man inside, the greater the need for 
> clothes outside (or words to that effect).
> 
I found the line:

"Clothes maketh the man. The less there is of the man the more there is 
need of the clothes"

It's a nice echo of Polonius'; 'the apparel oft proclaims the man'. It 
has a biblical ring, the way Spider puts it, which is right for the 
situation - if you find yourself taking Leviticus seriously, you know 
you're in real trouble.

Vestis virum reddit seems to be the earliest usage, though there is 
probably an earlier Greek proverb along these lines.

On Dec 11, 2:43 am, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>
> > Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:
> >> Lance wrote:
>
> >>> I am pretty certain that gene-environment interaction is crucial in
> >>> the growth of intelligence. I think Nisbett's reference to the large
> >>> gains made by working class populations shows this effect. Certainly
> >>> genes are crucial, but we don't get many intelligent people from poor
> >>> homes and poor schools.
>
> >> I don't think anybody has any doubt about that! The doubt seems to be
> >> about the genetic component for some reason.
>
> >> Both are clearly vital determiners of the result (one good hammer on the
> >> head from the environment would upset the best of all possible genetic
> >> plans).
>
> > So disingenuous! Of course the doubt is about the genetic component
> > for very good reason. That supposed contribution (or its lack) was the
> > basis for murdering people, for castrating people, for sterilizing
> > people, for including such inferior people in medical trials without
> > their informed consent, and many other abuses of human rights.
>
> I don't see any of the above as sound reasons for casting doubt on the
> genetic component. The Rwandans managed to kill each other in very large
> numbers without any appeal to 'science', and I think in the other cases
> you mention, appeal to 'science' is not genuine, simply a mask for
> existing prejudice.
>
> You're probably right, though, those are some of the reasons people use
> as an excuse to cast doubt on a genetic component.
>
> It is daft, though, assumes that people are more stupid than they in
> fact are, and, ultimately, puts scientific research into disrepute.
> People spend a lot of time being fascinated by hereditary differences -
> listen to a few women around a baby for not very long and you'll hear
> plenty of remarks about it. It is clearly important for all sorts of
> reasons, particularly, in the latter case, establishing the legitimacy
> of paternity.
>
> When people know all that from their daily experience and then hear some
> scientist coming up with the blank slate argument, they know it is bullshit.
>  >
>  > Judgeing fromwhat I read about some groups in the USA the potential
>  > for hate crimes based on claims of genetic inferiority is still  very
>  > real.
>  >
> I watched the film 'Rendition' last evening, and it made it very clear
> that there was no reason whatsoever for any scientific argument to have
> groups in Yankland abusing other people!
>
> I'm not sure what this term 'hate crime' is really supposed to mean. It
> is very popular in some circles. New 'error of judgement' Labour has
> spent lots of time daemonising various sectors of the population with
> rafts of legislation against 'hate crimes' that appear quite
> unnecessary. If you attack somebody, causing them physical damage, then
> there are laws that have been around for centuries to deal with the
> matter, as with other crimes. It can be assumed by any vaguely
> intelligent person that, if you do commit a crime against somebody it is
> because you don't hold them in much regard and, if it isn't strongly
> motivated by material gain, it is likely that you actually don't like
> them very much. Why you don't like them isn't really an issue.
>
> Inventing the idea of a 'hate crime' seems to be a move towards trying
> to have a real Thought Police to persecute people for imagined 'thought
> crimes' because a 'hate crime' is simply a normal crime, as I say above,
> where an imagined 'thought crime' against some currently fashionable
> group is added to it as an aggravating factor.
>
> It is bollocks. Unless there is some quite different meaning to it or
> reason for having a 'hate crime' defined.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree that people can find any excuse for hating and killing other
people. Most often the process involves finding some way to dehumanize
them, see them as less than human. Two common ways are to see them as
evil (in the 'war on terrorism' this is the most common route), and to
see them as inferior (this is the route that those who would see
blacks as stupid follow).

Scientists have indeed been intimately involved in the second route in
many ways. read up on Tuskagee for example. Or the eugenics movement.

I disagree with your remarks on hate crimes. Motives are a part of
every crime. They are considered in every court case. You can kill
someone for their goods (robbery), or you can kill someone because you
hate them as representatives of some group (black, gay, muslim,
atheist, etc). If you kill someone you have committed a crime. If you
kill someone because you hate the group of people they supposedly
represent you have committed a hate crime. No bollocks there. just a
fact of life in the modern world.

Cheers

Lance

On Dec 11, 1:14 am, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
> > Peter Ashby wrote:
> > > Except that at least here in the UK science is a working class activity.
> > > The children of the middle classes and that includes academics,
> > > generally go into the professions. They become doctors, dentists,
> > > lawyers etc. After all they know all about low salaries, long hours and
> > > poor job security.
>
> > > So that suggests either that you can get intelligent people from the
> > > poorer sections of society or that you don't need to be highly
> > > intelligent to be a scientist...
>
> > Or quite a few other options!
>
> > I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity.
> > Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even
> > if many in it are from the working classes.
>
> Which if you read it is my point. The largest section of the working
> scientists here are from working class backgrounds. All but one of the
> people I have worked for were at university on scholarships. They had
> dragged themselves up by passing the eleven plus and doing well aat
> grammar school. Not by being sent to public school followed by Oxbridge.
> That is one reason why in biology at least (by far the most numerous
> science these days) the dress code is so shabby.
>
> Yet they send their kids to good schools and counsel them not to do
> science.
>
> Peter
> --
> Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a countrywww.the-brights.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK. But the topic was originally black and white differences in IQ.

Lance

Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:

> I'm not sure what this term 'hate crime' is really supposed to mean. It
> is very popular in some circles. New 'error of judgement' Labour has 
> spent lots of time daemonising various sectors of the population with
> rafts of legislation against 'hate crimes' that appear quite 
> unnecessary. If you attack somebody, causing them physical damage, then
> there are laws that have been around for centuries to deal with the 
> matter, as with other crimes. It can be assumed by any vaguely 
> intelligent person that, if you do commit a crime against somebody it is
> because you don't hold them in much regard and, if it isn't strongly 
> motivated by material gain, it is likely that you actually don't like
> them very much. Why you don't like them isn't really an issue.

Try saying that in Glasgow Peter. People still get beaten up and
occasionally killed for supporting the wrong football team which is just
a proxy for belonging to the wrong group. 

When people who indulged in such activities, beating on people for no
reason other than that they were 'other' punishing them like any other
violent act had absolutely no effect on the problem. It is now several
years since someone died subsequent to an old firm game. Several things
have contributed to this but the new crime of sectarian aggravated
violence has certainly helped and outwith games in the wider community
as well.

There have always been crimes of aggravated this and grievous that. All
these laws do is define grounds for aggravation. It also means the issue
of the aggravation is front and centre in the court and cannot be
ellided by slick lawyers.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Lance wrote:
> 
> 
> I disagree with your remarks on hate crimes. Motives are a part of
> every crime. They are considered in every court case. You can kill
> someone for their goods (robbery), or you can kill someone because you
> hate them as representatives of some group (black, gay, muslim,
> atheist, etc). If you kill someone you have committed a crime. If you
> kill someone because you hate the group of people they supposedly
> represent you have committed a hate crime. No bollocks there. just a
> fact of life in the modern world.
> 
That gives a definition, I agree. What has it to do with sentencing tariffs?

Is there any reason why somebody who kills somebody because they hate 
them as representative is better or worse than somebody who kills 
somebody because they hate them directly?

I don't see it. Isn't it the killing that is the wickedness?

Yes, motive is a consideration of the courts for all crimes, just my 
point, why distinguish particular crimes because of motive?

The greatest disgust that I've heard expressed for people are those who 
committed crimes for no motive at all. So are 'hate crimes', since they 
do have a motive, to have milder tarif than motiveless crimes?

Peter Ashby wrote:
> Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure what this term 'hate crime' is really supposed to mean. It
>> is very popular in some circles. New 'error of judgement' Labour has 
>> spent lots of time daemonising various sectors of the population with
>> rafts of legislation against 'hate crimes' that appear quite 
>> unnecessary. If you attack somebody, causing them physical damage, then
>> there are laws that have been around for centuries to deal with the 
>> matter, as with other crimes. It can be assumed by any vaguely 
>> intelligent person that, if you do commit a crime against somebody it is
>> because you don't hold them in much regard and, if it isn't strongly 
>> motivated by material gain, it is likely that you actually don't like
>> them very much. Why you don't like them isn't really an issue.
> 
> Try saying that in Glasgow Peter. People still get beaten up and
> occasionally killed for supporting the wrong football team which is just
> a proxy for belonging to the wrong group. 
> 
> When people who indulged in such activities, beating on people for no
> reason other than that they were 'other' punishing them like any other
> violent act had absolutely no effect on the problem. It is now several
> years since someone died subsequent to an old firm game. Several things
> have contributed to this but the new crime of sectarian aggravated
> violence has certainly helped and outwith games in the wider community
> as well.
> 
> There have always been crimes of aggravated this and grievous that. All
> these laws do is define grounds for aggravation. It also means the issue
> of the aggravation is front and centre in the court and cannot be
> ellided by slick lawyers.
> 
That makes more sense, particularly the final bit. If all it is is 
defining better the existing grounds for aggravation, then it isn't a 
big issue.

These soccer battles are more small tribal wars than anything else. In 
wars it a virtue is made of killing people you don't know, as this poem 
points out nicely:

'Dooley is a Traitor'

'So then you won't fight?'
'Yes, your Honour,' I said, 'that's right.'
'Now is it that you simply aren't willing,
Or have you a fundamental objection to killing?'
Says the judge, blowing his nose
And making his words stand to attention in long rows.
I stand to attention too, but with half a grin
(In my time I've done a good many in).
'No objection at all, sir,' I said.
'There's a deal of the world I'd rather see dead --
Such as Johnny Stubbs or Fred Settle or my last landlord, Mr Syme.
Give me a gun and your blessing, your Honour,
and I'll be killing them all the time.
But my conscience says a clear no
To killing a crowd of gentlemen I don't know.

Jame Michie

Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:

> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that it is true that science is a working class activity.
> >> Engineering, maybe, but I think science is a middle-class activity, even
> >> if many in it are from the working classes.
> > 
> > Which if you read it is my point. The largest section of the working
> > scientists here are from working class backgrounds. All but one of the
> > people I have worked for were at university on scholarships. They had
> > dragged themselves up by passing the eleven plus and doing well aat
> > grammar school. Not by being sent to public school followed by Oxbridge.
> > That is one reason why in biology at least (by far the most numerous
> > science these days) the dress code is so shabby. 
>  >
> OK, so we're saying the same thing.
> 
> Are you sure about the dress code? Isn't that governed more by fashion
> these days? Doctors look a lot shabbier than they did a quarter of a 
> century ago. Lawyers too, but I agree that they still tend to dress up,
> I think that is more connected to the need to keep up an appearance of
> competence though - lawyers need more bolstering of the ego.

I have also commented before that the closer biologists work to
clinicians the shabbier the clothes become. When I was down at the main
campus dress was perhaps just below smart casual. Up at the hospital,
looking at the group leaders gathered together you would think that
perhaps you had come across a group of aging rock fans. Jeans and baggy
t-shirts being almost universal, even on the women. I do not exaggerate.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net