I only scanned the article, but it seems like it says that a bad upbringing causes someone to have a lower IQ than they would have achieved based on genes. Is this anything new?
You may as well argue height isn't heritable, since if you starve a kid they'll be stunted.
Umm, there, you are assuming that being smart is doing math.
He is? I thought he was he just giving an an example of a career where intelligence is a prerequiste. Perhaps being smart involves verbal skills like comprehension too.
I want to be a robot, I want to be a robot, I want to be a robot, I'm a crap person, I want to be a robot, I want to be a robot, I want to be a robot, I'm a crap person. I'm pathetic, I want to be a robot, I have an inferiority complex, I want to be a robot. Life's not fair, I want to be a robot.
Suppose the test is so hard that I, with lesser knowledge, can only answer one question based on actual knowledge. I answer that question, and guess at the other 99. You, who know twice as much as I, can answer two questions based on knowledge. So you guess at 98 answers.
As you can readily imagine, the odds of you getting a higher grade than I are very slight. In fact, over 45 percent of the time, in repeated trials, I would outscore you, even though my knowledge is half that of yours.
I'm confused (or he is). Assume he's talking directly to me, i.e. I'm the guy who knows twice as much as him.
In the long run he will score 1 + ( 99 * 0.5 ) = 50.5. My expectancy is 2 + ( 98 * 0.5 ) = 51.
Because people have done experiments[1] that prove your oints (number 4 particularly) to be false?
[1] an activity where scientists actually test and measure things under controlled condition, as apposed to just making stuff up based on supposition, heasrsay and anecdote - which is what you appear to do.
I believe that the same studies also indicated that talking to the person in the car is as dangerous as talking on the cell phone.
I don't. The difference is probably that I read them. In short a person in the car with you is aware of the situation and pauses appropriately, gives non-verbal cues and finally adds an extra pair of eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? As if this kite-on-steroids idea isn't daft enough to start with, they're going to attach it to a boat?
Or using length units as if they're time.
Nice post. I'm sure that, somewhere, there's a reference to the actual topic, i.e. agricultural labor. I'm just damned if I can find it.
If you were smart and a geek, you'd recognise a unix joke when you see it.
Don't count? I doubt if they can count.
Smartest is just another way of saying least stupid.
I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing they've covered that. I mean they're like scientists and stuff - you know, smart people.
Then if evolution's true, firstborns will eventually die out and be replaced by second and third-borns who have a higher reproduction rate.
I only scanned the article, but it seems like it says that a bad upbringing causes someone to have a lower IQ than they would have achieved based on genes. Is this anything new?
You may as well argue height isn't heritable, since if you starve a kid they'll be stunted.
I'm afraid your application's bound for the big round file.
Regards,
BoS, HR manager.
P.S. Who's clueless now, eh?
I'm a Catholic, you insensitive clod!!!!
Rgds,
Master of Translation.
I'd most likely snitch on my cousin.
In the long run he will score 1 + ( 99 * 0.5 ) = 50.5.
My expectancy is 2 + ( 98 * 0.5 ) = 51.
Seems I score more.
But most tests are like you say - and Jack can take advantage of his ability to know that he doesn't know (which proves he knows something!).
[1] an activity where scientists actually test and measure things under controlled condition, as apposed to just making stuff up based on supposition, heasrsay and anecdote - which is what you appear to do.