Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why on earth should people not have political equality or inalienable rights based on IQ?
What is next, more rights if you are deemed physically attractive?
I think it is absurd to even pretend that this is a real possibility that most would argue for.
Fact is, some people are smarter, some are dumber...some of it is genetic, but not all of it. It doesn't make you any less than human. Does it make you less human if you are slow at track?
Then why did Paul Ryan use arguments in the Bell Curve to justify slashing welfare benefits? As much as you all want to claim virtuous intentions, it's just not accurate.
I said that East Asians have higher IQs than Europeans on average, but Europeans are more creative IMO, which has led to their ability to basically run the world for most of the last couple thousand years.
Basically, people hate on Europeans for the same reason people hate on Tom Brady. The hate us because they ain't us.
I mean - your world view is just a guess...an opinion which contains many assumptions that are probably wrong. You see a result and think "well this must be why".....
Chaos runs deep through history. Circumstances come together at a place and time and sometimes we can grab it...sometimes we miss it, and sometimes we throw it away due to fundamentalism, war and pillage.
One could say that the darkness, cold and poverty/disease of Europe....and all the undesirables....and war and over-population as well as resource extraction, sent people OUT of Europe to colonialize and populate the world. So out of misery can come something better (for Euros, not for the enslaved or whose resources were stripped)......
As you probably know, European corporations sent many of their dregs here...on purpose. They had no use for them and were already overpopulated.
This whole discussion is more of "Guns Germs and Steel" - it's very complicated, but I don't buy the idea of a "creative gene". In fact, I think that - if anything - many Asian languages exercise certain parts of the brain that our simpler setups might not activate.
Maybe a new thread in philosophy needs to be started about your creative theories? There is no doubt that certain types of conditions create different types of creativity. Look at American music....it rises out of suffering. Without horrible suffering we wouldn't have blues or gospel or jazz or many other forms based on them.
One thing I think many of us can agree on is that it was always a tiny proportion of the population who created these innovations. The average Joe or Jane didn't have what it takes. Exactly what drove those creatives is debatable, but much of it was birthright. If Darwin or Newton didn't live in the conditions (private school in England - a life where they could think, travel and study), they wouldn't have had the time to even consider those major items.
For ANY person, ethnicity, etc. to take credit for the accomplishments of others and somehow think it makes THE special is beyond the pale.
Of course, we Italians have the highest IQ's in Europe. You are welcome!
I think it would be very tough for anyone here to say that 108 IQ's such as in China or Japan aren't "innovating" in most every way better than 90 or 92 IQ's in Russia. That is why one country is moving ahead at a rate many times what the other one is. There is nothing - except lack of intelligence - keeping Russia from being a world leader in many fields. But sometimes a little knowledge is worse than none at all - and Putin may be clever (10X as clever as Trump and others he plays against), but at the same time he is his own...and the Russian peoples worst enemy.
China and Japan have been innovating better than the Russians in some way over the last 30 years, but over the last few centuries, the Russians have contributed more to the hard sciences and arts than china or Japan. It's not even close.
In 2018, China is engineering some amazing things in the world of architecture and transportation, but most of their tech has come from South Korea, Japan, and the United States. Despite this, they are bringing far more to the table than Russia has since the fall of the soviet union. Russia is in a bad spot to innovate right now because of the countries leadership, but with that said, I would still favor Russian scientists to figure out how to clone a dinosaur or create cold fusion before the Chinese.
I mean - your world view is just a guess...an opinion which contains many assumptions that are probably wrong. You see a result and think "well this must be why".....
Chaos runs deep through history. Circumstances come together at a place and time and sometimes we can grab it...sometimes we miss it, and sometimes we throw it away due to fundamentalism, war and pillage.
One could say that the darkness, cold and poverty/disease of Europe....and all the undesirables....and war and over-population as well as resource extraction, sent people OUT of Europe to colonialize and populate the world. So out of misery can come something better (for Euros, not for the enslaved or whose resources were stripped)......
As you probably know, European corporations sent many of their dregs here...on purpose. They had no use for them and were already overpopulated.
This whole discussion is more of "Guns Germs and Steel" - it's very complicated, but I don't buy the idea of a "creative gene". In fact, I think that - if anything - many Asian languages exercise certain parts of the brain that our simpler setups might not activate.
Maybe a new thread in philosophy needs to be started about your creative theories? There is no doubt that certain types of conditions create different types of creativity. Look at American music....it rises out of suffering. Without horrible suffering we wouldn't have blues or gospel or jazz or many other forms based on them.
One thing I think many of us can agree on is that it was always a tiny proportion of the population who created these innovations. The average Joe or Jane didn't have what it takes. Exactly what drove those creatives is debatable, but much of it was birthright. If Darwin or Newton didn't live in the conditions (private school in England - a life where they could think, travel and study), they wouldn't have had the time to even consider those major items.
For ANY person, ethnicity, etc. to take credit for the accomplishments of others and somehow think it makes THE special is beyond the pale.
Of course, we Italians have the highest IQ's in Europe. You are welcome!
I do think their is a creative gene, but I also feel that is heavily bolstered by societal conditions as well. I think that more historically culturally conservative societies like those in the far east and middle east suppress creative thought. Just look at a country like Iran. Look at the innovation that came from this area before Islam. Europe was suppressed by religion and strict culture as well, but as a whole. European societies have historically been more open to change.
I also believe that men are undoubtedly more creative than women on average despite women being for the most part equally as intelligent. This is also a VERY taboo subject, so it's hard to have an honest conversation about it without people losing their minds.
\I would still favor Russian scientists to figure out how to clone a dinosaur or create cold fusion before the Chinese.
Interesting - total opinion and guesses, but interesting.
My thinking is that countries where all the resources and money is ripped off by a few and they largely control everything (Russia) are at a terrible disadvantage to places where Human Capital is more valued.
Russia kicked out a lot of their smart population(s)...and disowned others (Jews, Muslims, etc.)....and many with capabilities left (those who could). I think this continues today - a net outflow of human beings from Russia.
"Russia's population will decline from 143.9 million to 132.7 million by 2050,"
That's what we would call a failed state - and, what makes it worse is that it is failing on purpose. Money and ownership of the resources by a few (Putin being the great "giver") is their way. It is effectively a criminal state.
China may have their problems but they spend incredible amounts of time and energy on studying them and taking action. To me that is a sign of high IQ.
In the USA, meanwhile, we do little or nothing to address our problems....the sign of a lower IQ.
If, on the other hand, we (like Japan) actually created national plans and policies designed to life up the populace in IQ, we could do so within one generation..and even more in two. But we, or at least a large enough subset of Americans, seem to think such things are silly since we are #1 (in what?)....so we also are not making the best use of what we have.
Another subject - but my takes is that the future belongs to the brains (actually, this has been true for 1000's of years) and to the societies that are more efficient with energy, human resources, materials and everything else. Meantime, we're still crowing about cheap gasoline.
I also believe that men are undoubtedly more creative than women on average despite women being for the most part equally as intelligent. This is also a VERY taboo subject, so it's hard to have an honest conversation about it without people losing their minds.
I suspect it's more a case of men being far more prevalent on the far right tail of the creativity bell curve, just as they are with IQ. So we see an industry like clothing design, where the vast majority of the people involved are women, dominated by the miniscule number of men, mostly gay, who share that passion for fashion.
Then why did Paul Ryan use arguments in the Bell Curve to justify slashing welfare benefits? As much as you all want to claim virtuous intentions, it's just not accurate.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
I did a little research and your claim seems to be false. He wasn't saying to cut welfare. He didn't even mention IQ. Nor did he mention race.
He said that there is a rotting culture in the inner city like absentee fathers, which leads to generational poverty. Democrats then said inner city is code word for black and that focusing on the culture of inner cities ignores the real causes like racism and lack of opportunities, etc...when confronted Ryan cited Charles Murray but not any specific work of Murray's to back up his claim that culture leads to poverty.
Murray has done lots of work including on poor whites having a bad culture...and how bad culture in general leads to poverty -- exactly what Paul Ryan was saying....but the media jumped on a book that Murray wrote saying different races have different IQ averages...even though he has lots of work on culture and poverty and Ryan never mentioned race or IQ.
You made 2 factual errors in your claim and you are assuming that Paul Ryan was citing a work that doesn't fit his argument the best.
I honestly don't see why someone with an IQ of 115 should have any more rights than someone with an IQ of 85.
I don't deserve any less (or more) legal rights than a genius gets.
What is accurate is that IQ is largely hereditary...how can the Democrats claim to be the "party of science" while actively silencing science? Is it ever good to deny science?
P.S. I would oppose cutting welfare based on low IQs...something Paul Ryan didn't say.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
I did a little research and your claim seems to be false. He wasn't saying to cut welfare. He didn't even mention IQ. Nor did he mention race.
He said that there is a rotting culture in the inner city like absentee fathers, which leads to generational poverty. Democrats then said inner city is code word for black and that focusing on the culture of inner cities ignores the real causes like racism and lack of opportunities, etc...when confronted Ryan cited Charles Murray but not any specific work of Murray's to back up his claim that culture leads to poverty.
Murray has done lots of work including on poor whites having a bad culture...and how bad culture in general leads to poverty -- exactly what Paul Ryan was saying....but the media jumped on a book that Murray wrote saying different races have different IQ averages...even though he has lots of work on culture and poverty and Ryan never mentioned race or IQ.
You made 2 factual errors in your claim and you are assuming that Paul Ryan was citing a work that doesn't fit his argument the best.
I honestly don't see why someone with an IQ of 115 should have any more rights than someone with an IQ of 85.
I don't deserve any less (or more) legal rights than a genius gets.
What is accurate is that IQ is largely hereditary...how can the Democrats claim to be the "party of science" while actively silencing science? Is it ever good to deny science?
P.S. I would oppose cutting welfare based on low IQs...something Paul Ryan didn't say.
He doesn't just cite Murray, he calls him an "expert" on poverty. Also, it doesn't take a genius to see that the policy recommendations given in Murray's books (including the Bell Curve) are very similar to what Paul Ryan has implemented and proposed. Of course Paul Ryan dresses it up in a more politically correct manner; but, the idea that the government ought to stop subsidizing "lazy inner-city people" is very clearly laid out in the Bell Curve. You're giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not.
Then again, I think Paul Ryan is one of the dumbest policy makers in modern politics. So that's where my bias lies.
He doesn't just cite Murray, he calls him an "expert" on poverty. Also, it doesn't take a genius to see that the policy recommendations given in Murray's books (including the Bell Curve) are very similar to what Paul Ryan has implemented and proposed. Of course Paul Ryan dresses it up in a more politically correct manner; but, the idea that the government ought to stop subsidizing "lazy inner-city people" is very clearly laid out in the Bell Curve. You're giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not.
Then again, I think Paul Ryan is one of the dumbest policy makers in modern politics. So that's where my bias lies.
Lazy inner-city people? No, Charles Murray didn't write that. When you quote something from a book which is not actually in that book you are... lying. Quit lying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
