the neoliberal vision of the future

[frogwoman]

IQ is the single most important factor that predicts wealth and poverty. It's certainly not the only one. The people of North-Korea are biologically about the same in ability on average as the people of South-Korea, yet North-Korea is dirt poor and South-Korea is wealthy. The difference is not due to IQ but due to an unintelligent political system in North-Korea. So I am NOT equating poverty with lack of intellect and wealth with intelligence, but statistically it is a factor you cannot ignore.

Sociopath.

 

[goldenecitrone]

E.g. whites are people with mostly ancestors living in Europe ~40.000 years ago, blacks are people with mostly ancestors living in Africa ~90.000 years ago etc.)..

That's odd. I thought northern Europe was mostly unoccupied during the last ice age which was only 18,000 years ago. And after that it was a mix of homo sapiens, homo erectus and Neanderthals.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So when someone on this board just dismissed IQ as a social construct with no biological basis, that was just a coincidence then?

Inequality in what sense?

Questioning the validity of the socially constructed IQ as a measure of the socially constructed notion of intelligence, doesn't demand that all 'Left-wing socialists believe that all humans are equal mentally' you dolt! You know as little about 'social construction' as you do about 'Left wing socialists'.

Louis MacNeice

 

[frogwoman]

Funny how they never seem to apply these notions of intelligence and wealth etc to themselves.

 

[frogwoman]

Frustrated by an unintelligent political system.

 

[audiotech]

So when someone on this board just dismissed IQ as a social construct with no biological basis, that was just a coincidence then?



Inequality in what sense?

Not all are 'leftists' who post here.

Inequality in the sense of income is the obvious one, but that leads onto wider economic, social and political disparities covering a wide variety of issues to do with health, housing, political engagement and power, or rather the lack of it for the vast majority.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I do acknowledge that IQ is a valid biological concept and that there are statistical differences between races (a race can be defined as a mildly inbred group of people and is defined by their common ancestry. E.g. whites are people with mostly ancestors living in Europe ~40.000 years ago, blacks are people with mostly ancestors living in Africa ~90.000 years ago etc.). Acknowledging biological reality, however, is NOT the same as being a racist. As a liberal I am anti-collectivistic, and therefore obviously anti-racist. I don't judge people by the color of their skin.

Glad we've cleared that up.

Louis MacNeice

 

[SpineyNorman]

That's not an argument

It wasn't intended to be. You can't have a rational debate with a religious fundamentalist (emphasis on the mentalist in this case).

 

[onarchy]

We're talking about biology here, you stupid cunt, and specifically evolutionary biology, which is something I know a lot more about than you.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Now just fuck off, you nasty, thick, racist cunt.

You have an excellent opportunity to show me where I am wrong. If intelligence is not biologically based in ANY way whatsoever, why is it then that the human brain is responsible for 20% of the body's energy consumption at rest? Why are human babies born technically as embryos so as to complete the final spurt of brain growth outside the woumb if intelligence is not biologically based? Doesn't evolutionary theory dictate that the brain has to be pretty important to human survival in order to justify that high energy consumption and a slower general maturation rate? What possible qualities could the brain have that is THAT important to humans? And if the brain IS really, really, really important to human survival, why is it so far-fetched that there are heritable differences in people's brain abilities? If brain abilities are not heritable, what evolutionary pressures then caused our brains to evolve and make us brainier?

These would be some stupid questions I would ask someone who claims to know a lot about biology.

 

[audiotech]

IQ is the single most important factor that predicts wealth and poverty. It's certainly not the only one. The people of North-Korea are biologically about the same in ability on average as the people of South-Korea, yet North-Korea is dirt poor and South-Korea is wealthy. The difference is not due to IQ but due to an unintelligent political system in North-Korea. So I am NOT equating poverty with lack of intellect and wealth with intelligence, but statistically it is a factor you cannot ignore.

A megalomaniacal dynasty doesn't help matters and nor does isolationist policies and economic sanctions, but they do excel at synchronised marching.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not that I consider IQ tests to be of much value (in my view IQ tests tell you how good you are at IQ tests and little else) but wasn't there a study done fairly recently that showed a strong correlation between high IQ and left wing politics? (On phone again so no point in googling as I can't link anyway).

 

[onarchy]

It wasn't intended to be. You can't have a rational debate with a religious fundamentalist (emphasis on the mentalist in this case).

Well, I'm certainly willing to have a debate and question my assumptions. Are YOU? Based on the reactions of people in this forum I find it a much more likely explanation that *I* am not the fundamentalist here.

 

[Blagsta]

Well, I'm certainly willing to have a debate and question my assumptions. Are YOU? Based on the reactions of people in this forum I find it a much more likely explanation that *I* am not the fundamentalist here.

Yet you refuse to back up your arguments with references.

 

[SpineyNorman]

The intensified exploitation and enslavement of workers to the state (Nazism) has nothing to do with either public or common ownership, nor the co-operative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

I wouldn't bother if I were you mate, he has his own definitions of words and won't even begin to argue against your actual position, preferring in its place cod-psychology and strawman arguments.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Edited

Fuck it. I'm not engaging with this moron any more.

 

[onarchy]

Not that I consider IQ tests to be of much value (in my view IQ tests tell you how good you are at IQ tests and little else) but wasn't there a study done fairly recently that showed a strong correlation between high IQ and left wing politics? (On phone again so no point in googling as I can't link anyway).

Can you explain to me why IQ is so well-correlated with mental chronometry (mental reaction times)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry

 

[JimW]

Fuck me, this know-nothing clown has worse reasoning skills than most twelve-year-olds. And he's going to live out his pointless existence, influencing no-one and changing nothing, in the warm embrace of the "fascist" Norwegian state as the rest of the world goes to shite for reasons he can't even begin to comprehend. It's a funny old world.

 

[SpineyNorman]

A third position?

"your reaction is typical of leftists"

Your reaction is typical of sociopaths.

Just in case onar is wondering what frogwoman is getting at here.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This is a bit like the "Allende destroyed Chile's economy" ... "But what about the impact of US economic warfare?" ... "It wasn't economic warfare, anyway, they were commies and deserved it so it was their fault the economy was destroyed. "

and "Socialism is mass murder" ... "But Pinochet murdered and tortured the socialists, not the other way around?" ... "It was their fault for being socialists, he was right to murder and torture them and as they were responsible for his actions, they are the mass murderers"

... same shitty logic, disingenuousness and contempt for facts which we've become accustomed to on onar's posts.

Here's Stephen Jay Gould from his classic review of 'The Bell Curve'

The central fallacy in using the substantial heritability of within–group IQ (among whites, for example) as an explanation of average differences between groups (whites versus blacks, for example) is now well known and acknowledged by all, including Herrnstein and Murray, but deserves a restatement by example. Take a trait that is far more heritable than anyone has ever claimed IQ to be but is politically uncontroversial—body height. Suppose that I measured the heights of adult males in a poor Indian village beset with nutritional deprivation, and suppose the average height of adult males is five feet six inches. Heritability within the village is high, which is to say that tall fathers (they may average five feet eight inches) tend to have tall sons, while short fathers (five feet four inches on average) tend to have short sons. But this high heritability within the village does not mean that better nutrition might not raise average height to five feet ten inches in a few generations. Similarly, the well–documented fifteen–point average difference in IQ between blacks and whites in America, with substantial heritability of IQ in family lines within each group, permits no automatic conclusion that truly equal opportunity might not raise the black average enough to equal or surpass the white mean.

Disturbing as I find the anachronism of The Bell Curve, I am even more distressed by its pervasive disingenuousness. The authors omit facts, misuse statistical methods, and seem unwilling to admit the consequence of their own words.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html

 

[audiotech]

I wouldn't bother if I were you mate, he has his own definitions of words and won't even begin to argue against your actual position, preferring in its place cod-psychology and strawman arguments.

I sussed that many posts ago. Its been a while since there's been such good entertainment to be had from a poster.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well, I'm certainly willing to have a debate and question my assumptions. Are YOU? Based on the reactions of people in this forum I find it a much more likely explanation that *I* am not the fundamentalist here.

No you're not. You are willing to indulge in a little back tracking e.g. regarding the existence of gas chambers and their use. But only as far and until you rub up against your articles of faith; for you there may have been the systematic and industrialised extermination of jews, gypsies, the intellectually impaired, socialists, communists et al. which you previously denied, but you stand by the 'fact' that we are all nazis.

Hold fast Onar, you are the victim, you are the oppressed, you are the abused minority; remember, believe, trust in that and all will be well.

Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Here's Stephen Jay Gould from his classic review of 'The Bell Curve'

And this is such an obvious point that I have to distrust the motives of anyone who spouts this shit.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Can you explain to me why IQ is so well-correlated with mental chronometry (mental reaction times)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry

No, but then again I know bugger all about cognitive development or whatever it is. But I'm a bit dim and my IQ has consistently been rated as higher than my more intelligent sister, that's what I base it on. I can't believe I just gave you a semi-serious response there - you're really not worthy of it.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Your reaction is typical of leftists. In fact, it is textbook. In an earlier post I described in detailed exactly how leftists react to claims of biological differences in IQ and why. You're following the pattern perfectly. You're locked in the leftist conception of the world where there are only two alternatives: commies or nazis. If you're not a commie (or a moderate version thereof) you're a nazi. I on the other hand have a THIRD position (liberal) which is very different from both commie and nazi (and any of the shades of gray in between).

Your reaction is typical of a non-firstborn sibling. In fact, I'd say you spent your childhood in the shadow of an elder brother who outshone you intellectually, and that your provocative, reactionary, attention seeking behaviour today is largely a product of family dynamics during your formative years.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Well, I'm certainly willing to have a debate and question my assumptions. Are YOU? Based on the reactions of people in this forum I find it a much more likely explanation that *I* am not the fundamentalist here.

Cult members tend to be the ones who have different definitions of words from the rest of society.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'd be interested in any further reading you (or others) could point me to on the advantages people like Arthur Rudolph and Von Braun saw in slave labour from the camps, not particularly in reference to the rocket programme. I know a fair bit about that, more about the unholy marriage of slave labour and capitalist production methods. I'm thinking that it might turn out to be relevant to the understanding of the privatisation of the prison system.

For people who aren't familar with this material, here's an intro ...

http://www.dora.uah.edu/engineers.html

Off the top of my head, in terms of slave labour of technical workers, Tooze's chapter entitled "Labour, food and genocide" is a good start. Herbert's "Hitler's foreign workers: Enforced foreign labour in Germany under the 3rd reich" also has a section on Strauckel's sweeps through the occupied countries, "hoovering up" technically-skilled labour for use in the German war-production effort.

I'll see if I can dig out some more later.

 

[onarchy]

You were repeating claims made as a result of a study that concluded that, statistically, black people were more stupid than white people. Crudely, that is the conclusion of The Bell Curve. It is wrong. It is wrong because it did not properly account for the socially constructed nature of the tests and also did not properly account for the fact that your economic background and your parents' educational achievement are the most important indicators of how you yourself will perform yourself economically and educationally. That study is worthless.

Strangely enough that "socially constructed" test is very well-correlated with biological parameters such as mental reaction times, brain size and brain pH-level. How do you explain this? Also, if intelligence is heritable, then obviously your parents educational achievements are going to be highly correlated with your own performance economically and educationally. In order to distinguish which of these explanations are the correct one twin and adoption studies are employed a lot. How do you explain that identical twins reared apart are much, much closer in intelligence than they are to their adoptive parents? How do you explain that the IQ of an adopted child is no more correlated to their adoptive parents than a stranger on the street? How do you explain that the adopted child's IQ is significantly more correlated with the biological mother's IQ than with the adoptive parents, even when separated at birth? All these facts strongly points in the direction of the biological explanation, not the social one.

In fact we are born entirely helpless. Our brains develop in an environment – give them a stimulating environment and they will develop better than in a less stimulating environment.

How do you account for the fact that identical twins reared apart have nearly identical IQs, much more similar than two dizygotic twins reared together?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

And this is such an obvious point that I have to distrust the motives of anyone who spouts this shit.

The Bell Curve is scarcely an academic treatise in social theory and population genetics. It is a manifesto of conservative ideology; the book's inadequate and biased treatment of data display its primary purpose—advocacy. The text evokes the dreary and scary drumbeat of claims associated with conservative think tanks: reduction or elimination of welfare, ending or sharply curtailing affirmative action in schools and workplaces, cutting back Head Start and other forms of preschool education, trimming programs for the slowest learners and applying those funds to the gifted. (I would love to see more attention paid to talented students, but not at this cruel price.)

same source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Off the top of my head, in terms of slave labour of technical workers, Tooze's chapter entitled "Labour, food and genocide" is a good start. Herbert's "Hitler's foreign workers: Enforced foreign labour in Germany under the 3rd reich" also has a section on Strauckel's sweeps through the occupied countries, "hoovering up" technically-skilled labour for use in the German war-production effort.

I'll see if I can dig out some more later.

Ta, that's plenty for a start. Thanks

 

[Blagsta]

You have an excellent opportunity to show me where I am wrong. If intelligence is not biologically based in ANY way whatsoever, why is it then that the human brain is responsible for 20% of the body's energy consumption at rest? Why are human babies born technically as embryos so as to complete the final spurt of brain growth outside the woumb if intelligence is not biologically based? Doesn't evolutionary theory dictate that the brain has to be pretty important to human survival in order to justify that high energy consumption and a slower general maturation rate? What possible qualities could the brain have that is THAT important to humans? And if the brain IS really, really, really important to human survival, why is it so far-fetched that there are heritable differences in people's brain abilities? If brain abilities are not heritable, what evolutionary pressures then caused our brains to evolve and make us brainier?

These would be some stupid questions I would ask someone who claims to know a lot about biology.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Of course intelligence is "biologically based", but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself. We are biological beings, everything is "biologically based". You're positing a circular argument. In fact, it makes zero sense to talk about biology without locating it in a context of relationships with others. An infant left to their own devices will die. Infant development always takes place within a social context.

What is now acknowledged in infant development, is that humans are born with potential and how that potential develops is down to interactions and relationships with care givers and others. There are "windows of opportunity" for infant brain development, and if these are missed, then the development is much harder. This is why, for example, infants learn languages very easily, but adults usually find it very hard to learn a new language. Empathy, sense of self, emotional regulation etc are all things that require "good enough" attachment relationships in early years to develop along normal lines. When talking about "intelligence", well, it's very hard to actually define. As Antonio Damasio has shown, to function in society (i.e. in relationships with others - which we are all dependent on), emotional development is very important. So intelligence and emotional development go hand in hand, and are dependent on the sorts of relationships we have as infants.

This is why "individualism" vs "collectivism" is such a fallacious argument. We are all part of a collective, indeed, babies can't be conceived purely by an individual! Humans require caring relationships with others to acquire language, emotional stability and intelligence. Or to put it another way - "no man is an island".

See here
http://umaine.edu/publications/4356e/
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...in development windows of opportunity&f=false
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/brain_development/