Slashdot Mirror

And then read this to see Diamond blown right out of the water.

Fair enough.

Here is a statement by J. Philippe Rushton PhD, DSc., a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London.

It is "in response to attempts to discredit the very concept of race and to argue that race "has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man."".

J. Philippe Rushton: Race as a Biological Concept
November 4, 1996

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr01.html

"Other investigators have also demonstrated the relative independence of academic and practical intelligence. Brazilian street children, for example, are quite capable of doing the math required for survival in their street business even though they have failed mathematics in school (Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann, 1985). Similarly, women shoppers in California who had no difficulty in comparing product values at the supermarket were unable to carry out the same mathematical operations in paper-and pencil tests (Lave, 1988). In a study of expertise in wagering on harness races, Ceci and Liker (1986) found that the skilled handicappers implicitly used a highly complex interactive model with as many as seven variables; the ability to do this successfully was unrelated to scores on intelligence tests." -- Stalking the Wild Taboo

Thank you! Carry on.

I claimed that many of them do not believe in g,

(If you really don't understand.. there are discussion on most subjects in most research areas. It doesn't make Hoyle correct if you find cosmologists that argue against the Big Bang theory.)

You once again are taking a statement about some researchers who make a specific logical fallacy and translating that into ALL researchers making some unspecified "stupid errors" to make a straightforward logical argument that is TRUE seem like conspiracy.

Gould claimed the intelligence researchers did a central and stupid error for decades.

If that is true, then there should literally be a chapter in most psychology text books discussing that!! (Which, as far as I know, there isn't.)

You claim G showed decades of research to be wrong and irrelevant. It is like claiming that someone showed the world was flat 20 years ago -- and become angry when someone points out that the astronomers didn't change their text books. And that there were lots of criticism of the thesis in the public literature.

I have repeated that simple point four times now.

using logic rather than smear tactics

There are also Mayr, Maynard Smith and other evolutionary biologists claiming that Gould do smears.

Lets not even discuss Science for the People.

Forget all the nonsense about "emotional IQ" and other such. There are many reputable studies. I wouldn't put forth Scientific American as a valid source, but here's a link to a starting point taken from SA:

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/int elligence/cache/1198gottfred.html

In addition, here's a link with some comments on "The Bell Curve": http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

How about some sources for your view that improvement in mental capacity is unbounded?

Maybe you ought to read The Bell Curve,
written by people who know what they
talk about, like hundreds of other
professors and scholars who have proven
Murray and Herrnstein correct. They
show you exactly why and how Gould is
WRONG and has nothing to say about
anything.

Oh, the address signed by 52
internationally known scholars, experts
within the field of intelligence:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

Not true. There are biological differences in muscle types, oxygen transport, food processing, etc. See this article and others.

IMO, the US should be giving tax credits to those who don't squirt babies out, instead of the other way around. Manifest destiny is overwith, and China, along with the rest of the world, is a larger market of new consumers than "homegrown Americans" anyway.

I'm not joking.

--

For those of the population who labour under the impression that my knowledge of where on the internet to locate a study somehow affects it's margin of error, you can find many links on Minnesota study of twins reared apart. I doubt this is the study I was refering to, which tended to focus on the cases with large environment difference - one being raised jewish and the other nazi for instance, but the Minnesota study of twins reared apart is probably more balanced.