Nobody working in cognetive science, neurology, or, for that matter, designing 'unbiased' tests for employment would agree with you.
Be that as it may. Those are not really my area (pedagogics, if anything, is), but it is my firm belief that while studies as the one you linked to may have correct data the conclusions you draw from it are still unfounded as what they did was a quantitative study where neither the concept of intelligence nor any methodologics through which intelligence is measured, were not problematised .
As their purpose was probably to point out geneticall regularities and irregularities and not to draw any conclusions about intelligence, their method is not wrong - it is just there for a different purpose then proving the genetical superiority of a certain group of people.
You reason in a scary way, attributing intelligence to race and looking for a way to "solve the problem".
I think that you are very wrong to even indicate that more intelligent persons become educated in Africa. In Africa education is not availiable to anyone. To access higher education you must belong to a privileged group. If education was avaliable to all and individual wealth had nothing whatsoever to do with education, then perhaps your reasoning would work (provided, of course, that the education held the same standard).
If you are going to compare africans and americans in a scientific way, you would need to make sure they had the same starting position. Maybe if you compared the iq of african and american children adopted into asia you could get a fair comparison.
Where is that well documented? And by who?
I think the thing that has the greatest "heritability factor" is living-standard and access to education.
Some people think the surveys shoving that people in the third world in general have lower iq (such as the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nation") proves that whites are superior, but i think the only thing those surveys prove is that the method of calculating iq favors those who are educated. Racial biology has been proven a pseudo-science for quite some time, this whole iq-thing is just an attempt to sell the same old crap under a different name.
I am not saying that educated people don't have fewer children. What I am saying that education has nothing to do with genes.
Examplify how the libertarians in the US wants all fighting to end. Are you mayble referring to the the Korean war, the Vietnam war or the global civil war branded as "the war of terrorism"? Well, i guess that exterminating all opponents is one way to finish all fightings. It is also quite interesting that you call a country that at this time has colonised and brutally supresses the whole India, pascifist. It seems a bit incoherent with your previous definition of pascifists, so please clarify your standpoint.
I belive that state administered pascifism is hypocrisy (well, i belive that all pascifism is either hippocritical or incensecuential) as every state are founded on a violence monopoly, where the state alone has the sole right to exercise violence (in form of repression through police forces, armies, secret services etc).
No, libertrians are not pascifist. They call for pascifism from the side of the people and for violence from the side of the state. The libertarians are organised in parties set up to serve the interests of the ruling class, what i wanted to point out was meerely that the bloody libertarians doesnt give a damn about freedom of speach, except for when it interferes with the interests of the ruling class. She is carrying this demand as a means of getting publicity because she knows that it will not be implemented.
As for wheather Lenin is evil or not, i dont belive that ther is a good and evil scale when it coms to these things. Some sacrifices has to be made, the ends justiy the means. See for example the French revolution or the American civil war. Was the
'yankees' "evil" because the killed confederates in order to abolish slavery? I think not, and i dont think that Lenin was evil because he called for a revolution against Kerensky's pupet regime that was sending the workers of Russia in to the gigantic slaughterfest known as the first world war.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody working in cognetive science, neurology, or, for that matter, designing 'unbiased' tests for employment would agree with you.
Be that as it may. Those are not really my area (pedagogics, if anything, is), but it is my firm belief that while studies as the one you linked to may have correct data the conclusions you draw from it are still unfounded as what they did was a quantitative study where neither the concept of intelligence nor any methodologics through which intelligence is measured, were not problematised .
As their purpose was probably to point out geneticall regularities and irregularities and not to draw any conclusions about intelligence, their method is not wrong - it is just there for a different purpose then proving the genetical superiority of a certain group of people.
You reason in a scary way, attributing intelligence to race and looking for a way to "solve the problem".
I think that you are very wrong to even indicate that more intelligent persons become educated in Africa. In Africa education is not availiable to anyone. To access higher education you must belong to a privileged group. If education was avaliable to all and individual wealth had nothing whatsoever to do with education, then perhaps your reasoning would work (provided, of course, that the education held the same standard).
If you are going to compare africans and americans in a scientific way, you would need to make sure they had the same starting position. Maybe if you compared the iq of african and american children adopted into asia you could get a fair comparison.
Where is that well documented? And by who? I think the thing that has the greatest "heritability factor" is living-standard and access to education. Some people think the surveys shoving that people in the third world in general have lower iq (such as the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nation") proves that whites are superior, but i think the only thing those surveys prove is that the method of calculating iq favors those who are educated. Racial biology has been proven a pseudo-science for quite some time, this whole iq-thing is just an attempt to sell the same old crap under a different name. I am not saying that educated people don't have fewer children. What I am saying that education has nothing to do with genes.
..considering that it is not illegal to take part of illegally copyrighted material in Sweden, it isa just illegal to distribute it.
Examplify how the libertarians in the US wants all fighting to end. Are you mayble referring to the the Korean war, the Vietnam war or the global civil war branded as "the war of terrorism"? Well, i guess that exterminating all opponents is one way to finish all fightings. It is also quite interesting that you call a country that at this time has colonised and brutally supresses the whole India, pascifist. It seems a bit incoherent with your previous definition of pascifists, so please clarify your standpoint. I belive that state administered pascifism is hypocrisy (well, i belive that all pascifism is either hippocritical or incensecuential) as every state are founded on a violence monopoly, where the state alone has the sole right to exercise violence (in form of repression through police forces, armies, secret services etc).
No, libertrians are not pascifist. They call for pascifism from the side of the people and for violence from the side of the state. The libertarians are organised in parties set up to serve the interests of the ruling class, what i wanted to point out was meerely that the bloody libertarians doesnt give a damn about freedom of speach, except for when it interferes with the interests of the ruling class. She is carrying this demand as a means of getting publicity because she knows that it will not be implemented. As for wheather Lenin is evil or not, i dont belive that ther is a good and evil scale when it coms to these things. Some sacrifices has to be made, the ends justiy the means. See for example the French revolution or the American civil war. Was the 'yankees' "evil" because the killed confederates in order to abolish slavery? I think not, and i dont think that Lenin was evil because he called for a revolution against Kerensky's pupet regime that was sending the workers of Russia in to the gigantic slaughterfest known as the first world war.