"stlbl" wrote in message
news:1105015481.274546.122350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> So the environment demanded the great pyramids, its mathematical
> precision, and technology that still cannot be duplicated? Or the
> pre-Columbian cultures while Europeans lived in squalor??Were these
> white cultures?

Egyptians and pre-Columbian cultures were not white OR black.

Environment can do a great deal of things, if you include metabolism and
diet, uterine environment, and ual selection into "environmental
factors." For instance, introducing a half blind human male into a society
who comes from generations of half blind people - could easily result in
poor eyesight popping up in that popularion when there was none before. If
that half blind male manages to have a lot of wives and lots of kids - then
it would show up a LOT in the population.

The pre-Columbian cultures came and went, ebbed and flowed - and there are
only theories as to exactly why. The history of Egypt is better
documented - and how it came to end.
>
> What is your definition of race?

Well, first one must figure out if there IS race or not - and that wholly
depends on if you are a "lumper" or a "splitter." See here:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/variation.html

My definition more or less tends to agree with what the various races tend
to use for themselves. They all self identify - and they strongly do so
(especially if they are non-white, they strongly do so). Go figure.

I never said race was the same as
> species---Ive just never heard of any real definition of race...

http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/variation.html

Forget where the article is - the information in it is good and it's from
the top geneticists in the field.

Is the
> aim of IQ measurement an attempt to give some quantitative "basis" to
> someone's concept of race ?

You read the same article I read. In the article, they mentioned groups of
people that fall into this or that category. Call them whatever you want -
gene pools, cultures, ethnicities, breeds, whatever.

Or are you trying to re-enter the realm of
> medicine---psychology is certainly a science, but medicine is not.

The url I refer you to has genetic data - I guess that would be medicine,
not psychology.

> And they measured IQ in China during this breeding you are referring
> to? It would be easy to design IQ tests that would reverse the higher
> IQs found among whites and Asians relative to blacks.

I think someone tried that - it didn't work. There is also that Raven's
thing.

And has anyone of
> the signers heard of the studies measuring poor scores on IQ tests by
> groups that EXPECT (and are expected) to get lower marks?
>
> Whats this fast twitch muscle stuff.

Medical forensic facts. Research it.

Hitting a baseball involves a
> whole lot more than reflexes. And starting out young to make a good
> athlete..so what....measure the IQ's of the progeny of geniuses, as
> long as you make sure they were kept away from education and tell me
> what you find.

IQ doesn't measure what you were taught. Some of those kids that were
isolated from other humans and locked in closets for years tested quite
high.
>
> O fcourse playing chess and throwing balls has everything to do with
> making technology and industrial society actually OCCUR.You go ahead
> and build a culture without planning (chess) and machinists and
> carpenters (physical abilities)...

Lots of geniuses that make technology don't play chess. Lots of machninists
and such don't play sports.
>

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:35:02 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
[...]
> IQ doesn't measure what you were taught. Some of those kids that were
> isolated from other humans and locked in closets for years tested quite
> high.
[...]

A) You can be taught to score hogher on anya objective tets. B)
refernecs for "quite high" IQ scores by kids who were locked into
closets? Including complete data on what they did or did not have access
to (some of thsoe kids were not as isolated as others.)

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:42:44 GMT

> [...]
>> IQ doesn't measure what you were taught. Some of those kids that were
>> isolated from other humans and locked in closets for years tested quite
>> high.
> [...]
>
> A) You can be taught to score hogher on anya objective tets. B) refernecs
> for "quite high" IQ scores by kids who were locked into closets? Including
> complete data on what they did or did not have access to (some of thsoe
> kids were not as isolated as others.)

You'll have to find the references yourself - but there quite a few of them,
they tested above average.

I think if you and others like yourself were really interested in this in
any objective way, you'd already know about these cases of such severely
abused kids found years later and tested. Neurologists are especially
interested in them. Some of them can't even learn to speak; it's too late
for them, yet they test above average in IQ.

Right now, you and people who agree with you are quite content to just poo
poo the very notion of IQ and intelligence and affirm each others posts (and
quickly regard any hint of refutation as being from some hostile camp out to
commit genocide or some such) - and you all do that due to what I can see is
fear. You are also quite content to brand anyone who might write that
missive we both read on this thread - and sign it - "racist."

Whatever. Quite frankly, you don't want to know. So please don't PRETEND
you want to know by asking ME to "fetch" references for you.

Data showing that high testosterone levels plus low IQ lead to pretty
predictable violence is also probably unknown to you.

Big whatever.

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/mainstream-on-iq

Ask the people who signed that to fetch references for you.

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:06:03 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>IQ doesn't measure what you were taught. Some of those kids that were
>>>isolated from other humans and locked in closets for years tested quite
>>>high.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>A) You can be taught to score higher on any objective test. B) references
>>for "quite high" IQ scores by kids who were locked into closets? Including
>>complete data on what they did or did not have access to (some of those
>>kids were not as isolated as others.)
>
>
> You'll have to find the references yourself - but there quite a few of them,
> they tested above average.
>
> I think if you and others like yourself were really interested in this in
> any objective way, you'd already know about these cases of such severely
> abused kids found years later and tested. Neurologists are especially
> interested in them. Some of them can't even learn to speak; it's too late
> for them, yet they test above average in IQ.
>
> Right now, you and people who agree with you are quite content to just poo
> poo the very notion of IQ and intelligence and affirm each others posts (and
> quickly regard any hint of refutation as being from some hostile camp out to
> commit genocide or some such) - and you all do that due to what I can see is
> fear. You are also quite content to brand anyone who might write that
> missive we both read on this thread - and sign it - "racist."
>
> Whatever. Quite frankly, you don't want to know. So please don't PRETEND
> you want to know by asking ME to "fetch" references for you.

Well, actually all the reading I've done indicates the _isolated_ tested
below average, so I was quite surprised to hear you make this claim.
(Must've been different cases - oh yes, I see you now refer to abused
kids. Not qite the same as isolated kids, is it?) That's why I wanted
references. I could do some googling, of course, but thought you might
have the refs handy.

> Data showing that high testosterone levels plus low IQ lead to pretty
> predictable violence is also probably unknown to you.

This would mean that the IRA, for exmple, is staffed with stupid thugs.
Well, um, maybe you have a point. -- Anyhow, I've seen a lot of
different studies on testosterone and agression/violence, inlcuding one
of the type you allude to. The results are all over the map. I've also
seen data on agression/violence and cultural background. Cultural
background seems to be at least as good a predictor of agressive/violent
behaviour as testosterone levels. "Honour" seems to have something to do
with it, apparently. Maybe stupid people's sensitivity to insult is
higher. There's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that this is so -
has anyone studied this?) Maybe this sensitivity is enough to account
for the higher levels of violence? I dunno. But correlation of low IQ
and high testosterone levels doesn't rule it out.

> Big whatever.
>
> http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/mainstream-on-iq
>
> Ask the people who signed that to fetch references for you.

I saw the list. I read Hans Eysenck many years ago. I even tested my own
IQ - around 130-140 FWIW. The book said at this level, the testing error
could be as much as +/-10! No engineer or physicist would put up with
measurement error of this magnitude.

I have never denied that IQW don't test something. Nor have I denied
that IQ test results don't correlate with all sorts of things. (My
favourite is shoe size, as a matter of fact.) It would very surprising
if there were no such correlations. But just which correlations matter?
And why?

What I deny is that intelligence is a "general ability", and hence that
IQ tests measure it. The IQ tests themselves do not measure _one_
ability, they measure _several_ abilities - the text which you posted
lists them, in fact. What's more several of the supposed abilities (such
as "problem solving") are, to put it mildly, not at all well understood,
and if anything consist of several abilities themselves. I repeat: the
IQ hides data, as all scores that combine several numbers do. The hidden
data is important - even IQ fanatics have recognsied this, and some at
least now give the component scores. But they still believe that the
single number is meaningful.

Since IQ tests have been normed, their results will be reliable in the
statistical sense - that is, you will get the same results
(statistically speaking) with another sample of the group on which the
tests were normed. You will usually not get the same results with any
other group - it would be rather surprising if you did, actually, and
would need to be explained.

I've seen a variety of these tests, and been subjected to several of
them myself, and two things about them strike me is odd. One is how much
implicit knowledge these tests assume. Even the non-verbal tests assume
implicit knowledge of all kinds, such as what a pattern is, and how one
compares patterns. Patterns, like beauty, tend to be in the eye of the
beholder (which is, BTW, a reason why people with long experience of art
will see beauty in pictures that other people see as a collection of
messy daubs.)

One thing that my random reading in AI has impressed upon me is how much
implicit knowledge there is in the most commonplace of human tasks and
interactions. Trying to make systems that behave like humans even in a
limited domain is very difficult because of this implicit knowledge (and
other factors, too.) Some AI people think the trick is to find the
correct "knowledge representation", which I think isn't quite right, but
that's another issue.

The other oddity is how simplistic a view of intelligent tasks is held
by the test makers. In the case of multiple choice tests (including
pattern matching or predicting), I could often see good reasons for
selecting two or more of the offered choices - yet _one_ is the best
answer, and gets the highest score. Says who? On what grounds? These are
not trivial objections, since the scoring determines your IQ.

And so on.

Bottom line: whatever the correlations between IQ and other behaviours,
the IQ test does not measure what it purports to measure. As with all
objective tests, the numbers must be interpreted. The interpretations
are someone's opinion, and like all opinions, they must be justified.
Correlations with other tests are not a justification, but merely more
numbers to be interpreted. If the correlations hide some causative
factor(s) that can be elucidated and controlled, the IQ test will have
had some utility. Sofar, there has been precious little of that.

BTW, the biggest idiocy IMO is the "heritability of intelligence"
notion. Nothing you inherit can have any effect without the environment,
so to argue that so much of the IQ is due to inheritance and so much due
to environment misrepresents both inheritance and environment, and
worse, thoroughly misrepresents their interaction. That's not only
stupid, it's evil.

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:09:23 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:CkGDd.31543$7n1.1277384@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>

> Well, actually all the reading I've done indicates the _isolated_ tested
> below average, so I was quite surprised to hear you make this claim.
> (Must've been different cases - oh yes, I see you now refer to abused
> kids. Not qite the same as isolated kids, is it?) That's why I wanted
> references. I could do some googling, of course, but thought you might
> have the refs handy.

Uh, you do not call keeping a kid locked up in a basement for 14 years
abuse? Those are the cases I heard of over the years. Why would I have
references? Neurologists are interested in these people. Their IQ tested
above average. Their ability to learn certain things was below - so
neurologists learn that language skills must be learned by a certain time in
a person's life - or it's just too late. They especially paid attention to
the more RECENT and documented cases of kids raised by animals since they
were quite young. I didn't do any reading on it because it's not a main
interest of mine. But I have seen documentaries on science shows about it -
which were, for me, quite entertaining and informative. EG, one example, I
didn't read about the girl raised by dogs that barks (she's a grown woman
now). I saw her and heard her.
>
>> Data showing that high testosterone levels plus low IQ lead to pretty
>> predictable violence is also probably unknown to you.
>
> This would mean that the IRA, for exmple, is staffed with stupid thugs.

:-D. Ya think? James Michael Howard, who posts here, has heaps of data on
that. And yes, some whole gene pools of people DO HAVE higher T levels and
obviously, the selected and select in favor of that. Please check out JMH's
material - his posts are on here and he puts urls down.

> Well, um, maybe you have a point. -- Anyhow, I've seen a lot of different
> studies on testosterone and agression/violence, inlcuding one of the type
> you allude to.

ONE? Ah, you restrict your info finding to the web. Not a good idea. And
I'm not for getting "into ALL that" again - including the thing about
selection for friendlier behavior resulting in markedly different APPEARANCE
in offspring after only a few generations (hello - does that translate to
what people see and call race? It sure does.)

The results are all over the map. I've also
> seen data on agression/violence and cultural background. Cultural
> background seems to be at least as good a predictor of agressive/violent
> behaviour as testosterone levels. "Honour" seems to have something to do
> with it, apparently.

Ever think that people with all that honor shit that leads to violence HAVE
higher T levels to begin with? They choose to "be offended" by some stupid
shit. Imo, they have diseased egos and are a menace to civilized society.

Maybe stupid people's sensitivity to insult is
> higher.

Gee, ya think? LMAO. I see them as humans with diseased egos.

There's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that this is so -
> has anyone studied this?) Maybe this sensitivity is enough to account for
> the higher levels of violence? I dunno. But correlation of low IQ and high
> testosterone levels doesn't rule it out.

Yup - JMH has HEAPS of data on all of that kind of thing.
>
>> Big whatever.
>>
>> http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/mainstream-on-iq
>>
>> Ask the people who signed that to fetch references for you.
>
> I saw the list. I read Hans Eysenck many years ago.

I don't like that guy. He's not the only signer. There are much better
ones than him and Mr. "bullshit penis measurement" Rushton on there.

I even tested my own
> IQ - around 130-140 FWIW. The book said at this level, the testing error
> could be as much as +/-10! No engineer or physicist would put up with
> measurement error of this magnitude.
>
> I have never denied that IQW don't test something. Nor have I denied that
> IQ test results don't correlate with all sorts of things. (My favourite is
> shoe size, as a matter of fact.) It would very surprising if there were no
> such correlations. But just which correlations matter? And why?

Well, in western civilization, high IQ seems to matter regarding ability to
think in a very specific way. I would imagine in China too since they have
higher IQs. In some societies, brute strength matters more (all that macho
stuff).
>
> What I deny is that intelligence is a "general ability", and hence that IQ
> tests measure it. The IQ tests themselves do not measure _one_ ability,
> they measure _several_ abilities - the text which you posted lists them,
> in fact. What's more several of the supposed abilities (such as "problem
> solving") are, to put it mildly, not at all well understood, and if
> anything consist of several abilities themselves. I repeat: the IQ hides
> data, as all scores that combine several numbers do. The hidden data is
> important - even IQ fanatics have recognsied this, and some at least now
> give the component scores. But they still believe that the single number
> is meaningful.

Because the single number is a good predictor, as those two guys from
Rutgers said (I forgot their names, maybe Cohen or something like that).

I used to be one of the people that SUPREMELY poo pooed IQ results because
my IQ is in the 160s and my husband's is in the 170s. Every single person I
knew in my life with IQ THAT high had NO ambition - self included, husband
included. Our goal is to find a way to work the LEAST amount of time and
make good money, and then either stop working young or work PT and be semi
retired. I achieved that goal - stopped working at the age of 36. Good
riddance to crap I didn't want to do. Drudgery. We want to just go thru
life playing with whatever we feel like playing with, or reading what we
want to read, studying what we want. Every single person I ever met with
high IQ like that was the same. They got jobs like long haul truck driver
or some kind of really menial work that left them off to themselves, not
bothering with anyone else, where they could think their own thoughts or
listen to music as they worked. It's like we don't want to be BOTHERED with
any of it. Then, awhile back, the highest IQ on record, to boot, turned out
to be a hooker! I wondered "what good is it?" I can communicate a lot
easier with an uneducated street punk that talks REAL - "from the heart" and
speaks 100% in the concrete than I can communicate with some eddicated
parrot, pseudo intellectual that I call a "talking head" because he yabbers
about bullshit and doesn't even know what he is FEELING at any given moment.
He "realizes what he was feeling" weeks later. What the hell is that? A
split person? Well, yeah. It is. There is NO communicating with that
type. Not possible. But they tend to have higher IQs than street punks, as
far as I know.

TAKE that guy, Tupac Shakur. I think I mentioned him in this thread. I
have no idea what his IQ is - but what he was actually saying was for real,
GUT real, concrete. He was NOT some thug that advocated being a
dictionary-definition thug. I clearly "heard" what he had to say. But I
also realized that educated people were just not capable of understanding
the man, or what he was SAYing, the gut meaning of it. How can that be?
Well then, there are obviously different kinds of intelligence there,
different kinds of thinking - unless I opt to think that there was a vast
conspiracy against the guy and people out to get him for no reason at all.

Only very recently and due to a stupid little math thing that was supposed
to be a joke - and another math thing that was not a joke, did I realize
what high IQ means. What was TOO obvious to me, SO obvious that I didn't
have to do ANY math to figure both out (plus I'd not have known how to do
math for it, I never studied math past HS) - was NOT so obvious to people
that got scholarships in math and people in college - who took DAYS to
figure it out (the few that did figure it out!). AH HA! Now I know what IQ
is. My friend said to me that well, what's too simple and too obvious to me
is NOT that way to him - and his IQ is in the 140s. He said I ought to
think about what ELSE might be obvious to me - that's not so obvious to
others. Good point.

I know that if I get synthetic and "combine disciplines" people don't get
it. If I jump paradigms, people don't get it. If I skip the b, c, d, e, f
and go from A to G, people don't get it (I did that with the math problems).
What's the use. Bottom line tho, if a person doesn't "get it" when it's
spelled out 100% concretely, then they are REALLY stupid. People also don't
"get" something if their emotions get in the way of their clearly seeing
something - which is ANOTHER kind of stupidity, imo.

I wrote the article (and put my name on it, not some usenet nick) I put the
url to "Is there such a thing as race" and well - you can read it. The
answer is yes and no. Heh. I can prove it's yes and no, too. Heh. On
usenet, with nick, I often debate (and hope it doesn't turn into a flame - I
DO get flamed...).

he same results with any
> other group - it would be rather surprising if you did, actually, and
> would need to be explained.
>
> I've seen a variety of these tests, and been subjected to several of them
> myself, and two things about them strike me is odd. One is how much
> implicit knowledge these tests assume. Even the non-verbal tests assume
> implicit knowledge of all kinds, such as what a pattern is, and how one
> compares patterns. Patterns, like beauty, tend to be in the eye of the
> beholder (which is, BTW, a reason why people with long experience of art
> will see beauty in pictures that other people see as a collection of messy
> daubs.)
>
> One thing that my random reading in AI has impressed upon me is how much
> implicit knowledge there is in the most commonplace of human tasks and
> interactions. Trying to make systems that behave like humans even in a
> limited domain is very difficult because of this implicit knowledge (and
> other factors, too.) Some AI people think the trick is to find the correct
> "knowledge representation", which I think isn't quite right, but that's
> another issue.
>
> The other oddity is how simplistic a view of intelligent tasks is held by
> the test makers. In the case of multiple choice tests (including pattern
> matching or predicting), I could often see good reasons for selecting two
> or more of the offered choices - yet _one_ is the best answer, and gets
> the highest score. Says who? On what grounds? These are not trivial
> objections, since the scoring determines your IQ.
>
> And so on.
>
> Bottom line: whatever the correlations between IQ and other behaviours,
> the IQ test does not measure what it purports to measure. As with all
> objective tests, the numbers must be interpreted. The interpretations are
> someone's opinion, and like all opinions, they must be justified.
> Correlations with other tests are not a justification, but merely more
> numbers to be interpreted. If the correlations hide some causative
> factor(s) that can be elucidated and controlled, the IQ test will have had
> some utility. Sofar, there has been precious little of that.
>
> BTW, the biggest idiocy IMO is the "heritability of intelligence" notion.
> Nothing you inherit can have any effect without the environment, so to
> argue that so much of the IQ is due to inheritance and so much due to
> environment misrepresents both inheritance and environment, and worse,
> thoroughly misrepresents their interaction. That's not only stupid, it's
> evil.
>

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:33:05 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
[...]
> ONE? Ah, you restrict your info finding to the web.

Actually I avoid the web, if possible. I prefer Science and similar
journals. Don't read as much as I used to since I retired, though.

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:51:35 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
[...]
> The results are all over the map. I've also
>
>>seen data on agression/violence and cultural background. Cultural
>>background seems to be at least as good a predictor of agressive/violent
>>behaviour as testosterone levels. "Honour" seems to have something to do
>>with it, apparently.
>
>
> Ever think that people with all that honor shit that leads to violence HAVE
> higher T levels to begin with? They choose to "be offended" by some stupid
> shit. Imo, they have diseased egos and are a menace to civilized society.

Wewll, I said it was a study on _cultural_ background. Southern States
vs Northen States, in fact. I see no reason to suppose that Southerners
have more testosterone than Northerners. What's more, the experiment was
carried out at a midwestern college where, as it happens, the studnet
body was about equally composed of Southerners and Northerners. The
experimental setup was an "accidental" bumping into a person on a narrow
stairway that many student took between classes. The reactions wehre
tabulated, the accents of the bumpees indicateing what part of the
country they wer from. Not a bad protocol, IMO. Doesn't prove much, but
does cast doubt on the silly deterministic "high testosterone levels
cause higher levels of violence" superstition. BTW, I've seen a study
that found that violence increases testosterone levels, and that people
with lower levels of testosterone prior to the violent incident were
more likely to engage in violence.

You seem to believe that correlation means causation - at any rate, you
keep referring to JMH's data. Correlations mean squat. IQ test scores
correlate very well with shoe size. IQ scores correlate very well with
SAT scores. Etc. So what?

Oh, and "LMAO" is a _very_ intelligent argument. Obviously. I mean, if
you were stupid, it would just mean you didn't get it, but since you
have an IQ of 160 (+/-15), your reaction must be grounded in carefully
reasoned consideration of all the data, so it must summarise a
well-founded critique, and only a stupid person like me would take issue
with it.

[...]

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:53:28 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:AiTDd.75703$P%3.2526029@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
> [...]
>> The results are all over the map. I've also
>>
>>>seen data on agression/violence and cultural background. Cultural
>>>background seems to be at least as good a predictor of agressive/violent
>>>behaviour as testosterone levels. "Honour" seems to have something to do
>>>with it, apparently.
>>
>>
>> Ever think that people with all that honor shit that leads to violence
>> HAVE higher T levels to begin with? They choose to "be offended" by some
>> stupid shit. Imo, they have diseased egos and are a menace to civilized
>> society.
>
> Wewll, I said it was a study on _cultural_ background. Southern States vs
> Northen States, in fact. I see no reason to suppose that Southerners have
> more testosterone than Northerners. What's more, the experiment was
> carried out at a midwestern college where, as it happens, the studnet body
> was about equally composed of Southerners and Northerners. The
> experimental setup was an "accidental" bumping into a person on a narrow
> stairway that many student took between classes. The reactions wehre
> tabulated, the accents of the bumpees indicateing what part of the country
> they wer from. Not a bad protocol, IMO. Doesn't prove much, but > does
> cast doubt on the silly deterministic "high testosterone levels cause
> higher levels of violence" superstition. BTW, I've seen a study that found
> that violence increases testosterone levels, and that people with lower
> levels of testosterone prior to the violent incident were more likely to
> engage in violence.

Look up JMH's studies - they were not done as you say at all. High T is
related to higher density in bones, for example. Go read it.
>
> You seem to believe that correlation means causation

No, I see that chemical tests are chemical tests - and chemistry can explain
behavior.

- at any rate, you
> keep referring to JMH's data. Correlations mean squat. IQ test scores
> correlate very well with shoe size.

No they don't. Both husband and I have rather small shoe sizes - but high
IQs. I know what you are doing. You don't like empirical data.

IQ scores correlate very well with
> SAT scores. Etc. So what?

Yes, they do. Predictors, as the Rutgers College professors showed, among
others.
>
> Oh, and "LMAO" is a _very_ intelligent argument. Obviously. I mean, if you
> were stupid, it would just mean you didn't get it, but since you have an
> IQ of 160 (+/-15), your reaction must be grounded in carefully reasoned
> consideration of all the data, so it must summarise a well-founded
> critique, and only a stupid person like me would take issue with it.

Oh stuff it. Apparently it did bother you, since you HAD to rag on it.
>
> [...]

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:07:23 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
[..]
>>keep referring to JMH's data. Correlations mean squat. IQ test scores
>>correlate very well with shoe size.
>
>
> No they don't. Both husband and I have rather small shoe sizes - but high
> IQs. I know what you are doing. You don't like empirical data.
[..]

Oh, come on, P.Comm - you know an exception to a correlation does not a
refutation make.

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:19:26 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:V0hEd.3215$TN6.193946@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
>> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
> [..]
>>>keep referring to JMH's data. Correlations mean squat. IQ test scores
>>>correlate very well with shoe size.
>>
>>
>> No they don't. Both husband and I have rather small shoe sizes - but
>> high IQs. I know what you are doing. You don't like empirical data.
> [..]
>
> Oh, come on, P.Comm - you know an exception to a correlation does not a
> refutation make.

Ahem, thinking back to specific people knew with overly high IQs like that
(above 140) - none of them had big feet. Heh, on the contrary in fact
(HMM!) That statement you made is about as ridiculous as Rushton's
statement about how high IQ correlates with small penis size. Well ahem, I
offer you 1. my husband and 2 my father. (other males in the family weren't
that high, they were only like 126 or 132 or whatever - but they were pretty
well endowed - and yeah yeah, in crowded quarters privacy is a luxory of
rich prudes). Would that be two exceptions to the rule?

I'm not going to argue on this. Imo, it's 100% irrelevant - it's just mouth
offs on both sides that end up on usenet. Professors that signed that
document are on one side, I guess - and they don't all agree with each
other, either.

Let's forget IQ. Let's focus on behavior and also apply a BLIND merit
system when it comes to schools, etc. I'd bet hard cash on who'd come out
on top and who'd come out on the bottom. Hard cash.