Low IQs 'shouldn't procreate'

[Heydrich]

Interesting article. I myself am in agreement with Professor Nyborg. Irrational moral prejudices must not hold back progress.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7416881%255E1702,00.html

A DANISH academic has sparked an uproar by calling for state measures to encourage childbearing among intelligent people but to dissuade those with low intellectual ability, to create what he called a better Danish society.

Helmuth Nyborg, a well-known psychology professor at the University of Aarhus who specialises in intelligence research, said it was time to "abandon the politically correct" and to practice selection in order to "improve the coming generations and avoid degenerates in the population", in comments this weekend that have been widely reported on national television and the country's main newspapers.
"I'm aware that my proposal breaks a taboo that dates back more than half a century, since Hitler's Aryan race program, and it is very controversial," he said.

"But the debate has to be raised now because the trend is cause for concern in Denmark, where we have an increasing number of problem kids," he said.

His proposals triggered outrage among many politicians and experts, including Integration Minister Bertel Haarder, who said Nyborg's suggestions were "against all moral principles". . .

[Dear Wendy]

Problem is, where is the limit of intelligence?

[Heydrich]

That's an open question with no definite answer. There is obviously much room for improvement however. This is especially necessary in light of the absolute total failure of the "cultural" and "environmental" theories and solutions that have failed so miserably in recent years.

[Dear Wendy]

What he is saying is as a general rule true, but the suggestion itself has flaws.

[Clandestine]

avoid degenerates in the population

This too is a loaded concept. There are many well educated and intellectual degenerates around the world. Lack of intellect is no pre-requisite for moral turpitude.

[Heydrich]

Explain to us the flaws. Its a difference of opinion in my view. We should let countries like the UK run themselves into the dirt with their preposterous, not to mention discredited, cultural and environmental theories of human differences. Other countries, such as America, should reject this failed approach and procede with massive eugenic social engineering. We will see who comes out on top in the end.

[Heydrich]

>>>This too is a loaded concept. There are many well educated and intellectual degenerates around the world. Lack of intellect is no pre-requisite for moral turpitude.

I am in total agreement that IQ is not everything. Sure, I will agree there are plenty of social degenerates who are highly intelligent and consequently highly destructive, those I would consider enemies. This does not diminish the importance of intelligence in the slightest however. Will is just as important, if not more important than intelligence, in my view. There might be strong willed people with whom I totally disagree. This does not diminish the importance of this personality characteristic in success either however. Goals are also important.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Clandestine
This too is a loaded concept. There are many well educated and intellectual degenerates around the world. Lack of intellect is no pre-requisite for moral turpitude.

It is a general rule, which personally I can see to be correct.

People with a higher intelligence/education/value system, will often raise their kids according to the same principles and values which they have, which will make their kids turn towards a specific path, in the sense of goals.

You'll often see that peeople with a lower intelligence, will emphasise different stuff from people with higher intelligence, and will more often lead an unstabile life.

There are always exceptions to the rules, and often a lot. But in the end it's all down to social heritage.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Heydrich
Explain to us the flaws. Its a difference of opinion in my view. We should let countries like the UK run themselves into the dirt with their preposterous, not to mention discredited, cultural and environmental theories of human differences. Other countries, such as America, should reject this failed approach and procede with massive eugenic social engineering. We will see who comes out on top in the end.

Naturally you have survival of the fittest. In this day and age it can often be seen in education and jobs.
Thing is that governments are trying to slow down a natural process by equalising, instead of helping to further. Which means that they use ressources on the wrong fields instead of advancing the people who're already on top, and helping people who're down the scale make life work for themselves.

Such a plan wouldn't be suggested if money, ressources and support was given out differently. Of course, if that should come to power you need a whole new system.

[Clandestine]

All parents pass their value systems on to their children and I challenge you to provide credible substantiation to this general rule that intelligent people (implicitly) guide their children toward good, contructive contribution to society whereas the less intelligent guide their children toward degeneracy.

And who can make such sweeping generalisations as to suggest that the offspring of lesser intelligent people might not be geniuses themselves?

This is rightly criticised as naziistic nonsense. Claims are genetic or any other superiority belong buried with the monsters out of who's delusions such concepts sprang forth.

I am personally shocked that you of all people Jacq would lend any credence to such thinking.

[Heydrich]

>>>People with a higher intelligence/education/value system

These concepts are not interchangable. Have the integrated school systems not proven this over and over and over again over the past 40 something years? The general idea of the egalitarians forty something years ago was that once children were immersed in integrated school systems, since such differences were "cultural" and "environmental" because we all "human beings," such huge gaps would wither away naturally. You can look at virtually every single state in America and find the exact same pattern. The massive racial gap persists, despite BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars being thrown at, despite enrichment program after enrichment program such as Head Start, despite decades of demonization of racists. There is no cultural or environmental theory that can explain such massive, broad, and persistent differences in general intelligence. There is a massive genetic component in general intelligence, that is the fact, and it varies between populations as well. There is no equality at any level, within race or between races. There is no reason to expect such "equality" in the first place.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Clandestine
All parents pass their value systems on to their children and I challenge you to provide credible substantiation to this general rule that intelligent people (implicitly) guide their children toward good, contructive contribution to society whereas the less intelligent guide their children toward degeneracy.

And who can make such sweeping generalisations as to suggest that the offspring of lesser intelligent people might not be geniuses themselves?

This is rightly criticised as naziistic nonsense. Claims are genetic or any other superiority belong buried with the monsters out of who's delusions such concepts sprang forth.

I am personally shocked that you of all people Jacq would lend any credence to such thinking.

What he says is true though. He just blames it on intelligence, I on social heritage.

And I don't support the plan. It has some major flaws. Will state them tomorrow, if needed. But I don't dismiss the general theory behind the suggestion.

[Heydrich]

>>>All parents pass their value systems on to their children and I challenge you to provide credible substantiation to this general rule that intelligent people (implicitly) guide their children toward good, contructive contribution to society whereas the less intelligent guide their children toward degeneracy.

LOL where did you come up with this idea? Would you say the beatniks of the 1960s inherited their value system from their parents?

>>>And who can make such sweeping generalisations as to suggest that the offspring of lesser intelligent people might not be geniuses themselves?

Massive empirical proof, see Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

>>>This is rightly criticised as naziistic nonsense. Claims are genetic or any other superiority belong buried with the monsters out of who's delusions such concepts sprang forth.

LOL just as I expected. The objection is not based on factual, scientific, or empirical grounds, but as always, on reactionary moral and ideological prejudice, an irrational fear of the political implications of such ideas. This is the same sort of backwardness that kept Europe in ignorance for centuries. Europe only began to rise out of the gutter once the notion the progress should be subordinated to the tartuffery known as morality was discarded. Unfortunately, it would appear as we are creeping ever so slowly back into the Dark Ages out of fear of social change, only this time, political correctness has replaced medieval christianity.

>>>I am personally shocked that you of all people Jacq would lend any credence to such thinking.

Horrible! How can we ever take such HEARSAY seriously! Quick! Someone report this heretic to the Inquisition! I will bring the Holy Water! Recant!! :lol:

[Heydrich]

Lets go through the cultural theories one by one.

Miele: There are hundreds if not thousands of articles and books that say exactly the opposite. We can't examine every nongenetic or culture-only explanation for the Black-White difference in average IQ, but I'd like to present ten of the best-known, one-by-one, and have you respond with the evidence you believe disproves them.

Jensen: Go ahead.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #1: Blacks and Whites differ significantly in their average socioeconomic status (SES), and since SES is a determinant of IQ, it explains the average Black-White IQ difference.

Jensen: Racial differences in SES cannot explain the average IQ difference. When statistical procedures are used to remove the effect of the difference in SES or when Blacks and Whites are simply matched on measures of SES, the Black-White IQ difference is reduced, but only from 15 to 12 points. And not all of that three-point reduction is due to SES, because SES differences within each racial group also have some genetic component. Therefore matching Blacks and Whites on SES to some extent also matches them genetically in terms of the g factor.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #2: School facilities of Blacks are well below those of Whites.

Jensen: Educational inequality can't explain away the average IQ difference either. In the last 30 years or so many school systems have been racially integrated and now provide the same facilities and instructional programs for Blacks and Whites alike, yet the average differences of about one standard deviation in IQ and scholastic achievement remain.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #3: IQ only measures knowledge of the "core culture" and therefore the tests are inherently biased against minorities.

Jensen: The claim that the Black-White IQ difference is a result of culturally biased tests has been disproved. A detailed explanation, which requires a working knowledge of psychometrics, is presented in my 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing. But you need not take my word on it. Following publication of my book, a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council examined the question and reached essentially the same conclusions.

The most widely used mental tests today have the same reliability for Blacks and Whites, which means that if you give the test to a group of people and then test them again at a later date, they get about the same scores. The important point is that there is no evidence that the test scores for Blacks are unstable or erratic. Whatever the tests measure, they measure it just as reliably for Blacks as they do for Whites.

Mental tests also have the same predictive validity for Blacks as they have for Whites. This means that they predict other important real-life criteria, such as school grades and job performance, with the same accuracy for both groups. If you are trying to predict how well someone will do in college and they have an IQ of 125, it makes no difference whether they are Black or White, or anything else.

Tests also have the same factor structure in both groups. So if you factor analyze the test scores of either Blacks or Whites on a battery of mental tests, you will find the g factor at the top, followed by the group factors, and then the special factors. The g factor is indeed real and just as important for Blacks as it is for Whites, and indeed, for any group.

The item-to-item correlations are the same for both groups, and so is the rank order of item difficulties. Simply stated, the items that are easiest for whites are also the ones that are easiest for Blacks. This is important because it would not be true if some types of items were specially biased against Blacks - the way vocabulary items, for example, are biased against recent immigrants who are unfamiliar with English. Blacks and Whites even make the same types of errors and get fooled into picking the same distractor items in multiple-choice tests.

The evidence on each of these points is so overwhelming that no one in the field any longer argues the point.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #4: African-Americans are being tested in a language other than their own.

Jensen: Insufficient familiarity with standard English and the use of "Black English" was a popular claim in the 1960s and 70s. But the Black-White IQ differences are as large or larger on a variety of non verbal tests that make no use of alphanumeric symbols as on verbal tests. And children who are born deaf and hence have had virtually no exposure to spoken language do not show any deficiet on non verbal tests.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #5: Nutrition plays an important role in mental development, as does exposure to toxic chemicals and Blacks and Whites differ on these measures also.

Jensen: I've never claimed that the Black-White difference in average IQ is 100 genetic, only that both genetic and environmental factors are involved, just as with individual differences within each race, and probably to around the same degree. Nutritional factors do account for some part of the average racial IQ difference. Even when there is no evidence of poor nutrition, however, there is still a Black-White IQ difference.

In the Black underclass, nutrition does have a measurable effect on IQ. On a per-capita basis, prematurity and low birth weight are much more prevalant amongst Blacks than Whites. The difference between mother's milk and baby formulas also makes a significant difference in the IQs of low-birth-weight infants of either race by the time they reach school age. Unfortunately, at this point in history, a smaller percentage of African-American mothers breast feed their babies. Fortunately, that's one thing that could probably be changed at relatively little cost by making the information better known in communites, Black or White, that are at highest risk for low birth weight babies.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #6: Blacks and Whites differ markedly in their historical experience.

Jensen: To my knowledge, no one has ever demonstrated that a group’s past history, independent of its earlier genetic history, affects their present-day average IQ. Some racial and ethnic minorities that historically have been victimized by discrimination and persecution, such as Jews in Europe, East Indians in Africa and in Britain, and Chinese and Japanese in the United States, actually have higher average IQs than the White or other majority population they live among.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #7: The totality of these cultural, environmental, and nutritional factors interact step by step, and nutritional factors interact step by step, from conception to adolescence, to construct our entire cognitive structure.

Jensen: This hypothesis could be tested by rearing black children in middle-class or upper middle-class White families. That is what was done in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. The researchers compared infants with two Black parents (BB or Black in everyday parlance), infants with a White mother and a Black father (WB, or mixed race), as well as a control group of white children (WW), all adopted into two-parent White upper-middle-class homes. The adoptive parents were mostly college graduates with managerial and professional jobs.

All of the adoptees, Black (BB), mixed race (WB), and White (WW), were given IQ tests and scholastic achievement tests at age seven years and again at age 17. When tested at age 7, average IQs for the BB and WB children were several points higher than the average Black children reared in the same community, indicating a beneficial effect of the middle-class, White home environment on the IQ of these adoptees. By age 17, however, the average IQ for the Black adopted children was about 16 points below the White average. This is not significantly different from the national average IQ for Black youths. So even growing up in a White middle-class home did not produce a lasting reduction in the familiar one standard deviation Black-White difference in average IQ.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #8: The lower average IQ of Americans of African ancestry is the result of racist America’s “self-fulfilling prophecy” of discrimination against Blacks and even supposedly “scientific theories” about “genetic inferiority” based on the color of their skin, not the level of the g factor.

Jensen: To some extent you can test hypothesis as well by a more detailed analysis of the results of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. The average IQ of the mixed race (WB) adoptees, when they were tested at age 7 and again at age 17, was just about halfway between the average IQs of the WW adoptees and of the BB adoptees. Yet there was no mistaking the African ancestry of the mixed-race children from their appearance. In fact, a WB child would probably be considered Black in America today, as are well known individuals of mixed ancestry such as Halle Berry or Tiger Woods. Its hard to explain the intermediate position of the WB adoptees in purely environmental terms, including the consequences of societal racism, but it is what you could predict beforehand from the Default Hypothesis. The complete results of the Transracial Adoption Study showed no evidence that, by age 17, being raised from infancy in an upper middle class White family raised the Black adoptees average IQ or their overall level of scholastic performance above that of Black children reared by their biological parents.

[morrocan roll]

nazis should not only not be alowed to breed but breath as well. scum ideas with scum values.
oh what a lovely world where all the inteligent people can sit and chat about how they themselves are so wonderful ...who's going to do the cleaning?

[Heydrich]

>>>nazis should not only not be alowed to breed but breath as well. scum ideas with scum values.

ROFL yes, if zee evil Nazis were actually able to "breed" and "breathe," in essence, put their ideas into practice, the rest of the filth otherwise known as "humanity" might just be left in the dust. The poor dears! Have a little "morality" for the little guys!

>>>oh what a lovely world where all the inteligent people can sit and chat about how they themselves are so wonderful ...who's going to do the cleaning?

Do slaves still pick cotton or has technology replaced such individuals?

:lol:

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #9: Experimental programs of intensive early cognitive intervention such as the classic "Miracle in Milwaukee" successfully increased the IQ of Black children.

Jensen: The results of these experimental attempts to raise the IQs of Black infants at risk for Low IQ are quite consistent with the results of the Transracial Adoption Study. In the highly publicized Milwaukee Project, a trained staff gave Black children from poor homes intensive all-day environmental enrichment and training in mental skills from infancy to age six, at which time they entered regular public schools. The special training raised IQs quite markedly above those of a control group of similar children who did not receive the training. But the training did not significantly raise the scholastic achievement and other kinds of performance that are typically correlated with IQ. So the gains in the test scores were "hollow" with respect to the g factor. The most likely explanation is that the results came from "teaching the test," and not really raising the level of g.

Miele: Culture-Only Theory #10: The Milwaukee Project was an early attempt at experimental cognitive intervention and naturally had its limitations. But the more recent Abecedarian Project produced lasting gains in the IQ and school achievement of at-risk Black children. So both the claim in your 1969 "HER article that "compensatory education has been tried and apparently it has failed[/i]" and your Default Hypothesis about intelligence, race, and genetics have now been disproved.

Jensen: You're correct that the criticisms of "teaching the test" and "hollow gains" cannot be made of the more recent Abecedarian Project, which involves intensive and prolonged educational training of children at risk for low IQ. The project raised the IQ of the children who received it about five points, on average, above a control group, who did not. You're also correct that his gain still held up when the children were retested at age 14 and that it was accompanied by a comparable gain in scholastic performance. And this is all well and good. But it should also be noted that even the most intensive cognitive intervention program yet devised provided during all the children's preschool years only rduced the national Black-White difference in average IQ by about one-third (that is, 5 out of 15 points). This is the best evidence we have of the extent in which improving the cognitive environment of at-risk groups can increase their IQ. The results of this Abecedarian Project in no way disprove the Default Hypothesis of genes and environment; they are fully consistent with it.

Frank Miele, Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen (Oxford, 2002), pp.127-33

[morrocan roll]

i've just been speaking to a couple of people with low iq's and they said ...people with high iq's should not be alowed to breed.
the resoning was, if the maximum iq alowed was 50 then the world wouldn't be in the fucking mess it's in now.

[Heydrich]

>>>i've just been speaking to a couple of people with low iq's and they said ...people with high iq's should not be alowed to breed.
the resoning was, if the maximum iq alowed was 50 then the world wouldn't be in the fucking mess it's in now.

LOL yes, if only humans were even more INFERIOR than the Congolese and Zimbabweans, then everything would simply be great. What can you say to fanatics who yearn for poverty and ignorance? Keep in mind that THESE are the people who call Fascists extremists. THESE are the people who so often talk about progress. Just what are these people progressing towards again? Look at the third world slums throughout the West these days they have created in the name of diversity which is supposed to be so great, in all their degredation and disgusting filth. Look at the litany of FAILED rainbow nations throughout the world, nations like South Africa, with the highest murder and rape rate in the world.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i've just been speaking to a couple of people with low iq's and they said ...people with high iq's should not be alowed to breed.
the resoning was, if the maximum iq alowed was 50 then the world wouldn't be in the fucking mess it's in now.

It's twisting the discussion completely around to start talking about IQs. You can't base decisions on that, as IQ can't be used as a meassurement for anything, except from logics to a certain extent. And even then, the IQ system isn't completely valid.

And yes it's only now that I actually took notice of the thread title :yeees:

[opopanax]

There appear to be a few examples of moral degeneracy on this very thread.

Selective breeding. The Aryan race.

Hardly original thinking now, is it?

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by opopanax
The Aryan race.


The professor himself has clearly states that his plan goes for intelligence only, and isn't discriminating against any races or religions.

[Clandestine]

regardless of "the professor" advocates, "the professor" obviously has no regard whatsoever for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in advocating who should or should not be "allowed" to procreate.

It's a crackpot idea anyways since the only way to ensure such a policy would be forced sterilisation and if that came to pass, we might as well have let Hitler's crowd get it on with it 60 years ago. :rolleyes:

This Naziism in sheeps clothing.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
It's twisting the discussion completely around to start talking about IQs. You can't base decisions on that, as IQ can't be used as a meassurement for anything, except from logics to a certain extent. And even then, the IQ system isn't completely valid.

Indeed, IQ tests are ethnocentric even today and don't take in to account people with learning disabilities, material deprivation (thus having less resources, a poorer diet and an environment that may not be suitable for study) and people from other cultures who may not understand the questions as English is not their first language.

All parents pass their value systems on to their children and I challenge you to provide credible substantiation to this general rule that intelligent people (implicitly) guide their children toward good, contructive contribution to society whereas the less intelligent guide their children toward degeneracy.

IQ being hereditary is an idea used by right wingers to explain racial and meterial inequality according to functionalist/new right sociologists. Personally I believe and I have stated above that IQ type intellect is almost entirely environmental and that in my opinion with the acception of children born with mental retardation, most babies have the same intellect when they're young.

Take the older tripartite education system just after WW2 for example, almost all the children who passed the 11+ were middle class. Now is this because of environmental factors? Or are middle class people genuinely born intelligent? One of the brightest people I know got an IQ of 60 on an online test, yet can build a fantastic website out of HTML in a matter of minutes.

As for intellect affecting moral values, take a look at Bandura's social learning theory. Or maybe you could question why so many people followed Hitler (who has been mentioned). Were that many people stupid? Was Hitler burdened with a low IQ?

I think not...

Prejudice can take many forms and what most people don't understand is that's it's the influence of the media and the intelligent people who run it to influence people that are likely to read newspapers such as The Sun. Racial intolerance is, in my opinion is cultural and preventing people with low IQs from procreating is being no better than preventing a black person from having a baby. Screw political correctness, right? because it's unfair to pick on somebody for there skin colour... but it's perfectly Ok to target people with a low IQ?

[opopanax]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
The professor himself has clearly states that his plan goes for intelligence only, and isn't discriminating against any races or religions.

However, a quick google tells me that the "professor" has been involved in the race and intelligence "debate"

Anyways, Ms. Ripper, what do you make of this?

LOL yes, if only humans were even more INFERIOR than the Congolese and Zimbabweans

:confused:

[Jaloux]

I personally think it's rather absurd to measure things like that by making people take IQ tests. Now I have never taken one and thus not gotten a rating, but I don't believe that they can measure every aspect of a person's intelligence.

And it also brings the question of where to draw the line? When does a person become stupid, and when does it become intelligent?

If the human race were to use one of these methods, I think that it would be much better to focus on something not so unmeasurable as intelligence and rather try to eliminate hereditary gene defects and something of that sort which directly affects people's children.

And what about all the jobs the "educated" people just don't want to do? Here in Iceland we have had to hire a lot of foreign workers because our citizens that are stuck in the "high standard of living" way of thinking and just don't want to do some of the jobs available. I'm of course not saying that the Icelandic people are more intelligent than the people we are hiring from abroad. :)

[Heydrich]

>>>There appear to be a few examples of moral degeneracy on this very thread.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

>>>Selective breeding. The Aryan race.

The professor said nothing about "the Aryan race."

>>>Hardly original thinking now, is it?

LOL I will take "the Aryan Race" over the impoverished third world slums that are supposedly "enriching" Europe anyday.

>>>Indeed, IQ tests are ethnocentric even today and don't take in to account people with learning disabilities, material deprivation (thus having less resources, a poorer diet and an environment that may not be suitable for study) and people from other cultures who may not understand the questions as English is not their first language.

This is a flat out lie supported by no evidence whatsoever. These tests have proven to be both VALID and RELIABILE statistically, in that whatever they are measuring they are certainly doing it accurately. Do you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about? Do you know anything about statistics or research methods?

>>>IQ being hereditary is an idea used by right wingers to explain racial and meterial inequality according to functionalist/new right sociologists.

This is another false generalization. Jensen, who I cited above, is pretty much apolitical. He is actually, imagine this, a Gandhian! The fact that IQ has a genetic component has been established for YEARS.

>>>Personally I believe and I have stated above that IQ type intellect is almost entirely environmental and that in my opinion with the acception of children born with mental retardation, most babies have the same intellect when they're young.

Where has such a thesis ever withstood criticism? The notion that IQ is "almost entirely environmental" is preposterous. It has be discredited in COUNTLESS experiments over and over again, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study being amongst the most famous.

>>>Take the older tripartite education system just after WW2 for example, almost all the children who passed the 11+ were middle class. Now is this because of environmental factors? Or are middle class people genuinely born intelligent? One of the brightest people I know got an IQ of 60 on an online test, yet can build a fantastic website out of HTML in a matter of minutes.

Anonymous authorities.

>>>As for intellect affecting moral values, take a look at Bandura's social learning theory.

There is no such this as objective morality.

>>>Or maybe you could question why so many people followed Hitler (who has been mentioned). Were that many people stupid? Was Hitler burdened with a low IQ?

LOL I would compare the intellectual and cultural quality of Germany under Hitler to any decaying Western democracy.

>>>Prejudice can take many forms and what most people don't understand is that's it's the influence of the media and the intelligent people who run it to influence people that are likely to read newspapers such as The Sun.

I don't read the Sun.

>>>Racial intolerance is, in my opinion is cultural and preventing people with low IQs from procreating is being no better than preventing a black person from having a baby. Screw political correctness, right? because it's unfair to pick on somebody for there skin colour... but it's perfectly Ok to target people with a low IQ?

Arbitrary and spurious unobjective notions of "morality" and "fairness" should not stand in the way of scholarship and progress anymore than Allah or Jesus Christ.

[Heydrich]

>>>I personally think it's rather absurd to measure things like that by making people take IQ tests.

Yes, IQ tests do not produce the lie called "equality" the egalitarian religious zealots desire so why not simply demonize science?

>>>Now I have never taken one and thus not gotten a rating, but I don't believe that they can measure every aspect of a person's intelligence.

LOL yes, all humans HAVE to be EQUAL in fact, despite every single shred of evidence indicating just the opposite. If everyone is not equal, then that implies that some people are superior to others, and like OMG, Hitler!! Remember the Holocaust(TM)!

>>>And it also brings the question of where to draw the line? When does a person become stupid, and when does it become intelligent?

Have you ever heard of retardation? :p

>>>If the human race were to use one of these methods

There is a human species. There is however no human race. Humanity is not static either. It can, in time, hopefully be overcome.

>>> I think that it would be much better to focus on something not so unmeasurable as intelligence and rather try to eliminate hereditary gene defects and something of that sort which directly affects people's children.

LOL it would come as a suprise to psychometricians to hear the notion that general intelligence is not measureable.

>>>And what about all the jobs the "educated" people just don't want to do? Here in Iceland we have had to hire a lot of foreign workers because our citizens that are stuck in the "high standard of living" way of thinking and just don't want to do some of the jobs available. I'm of course not saying that the Icelandic people are more intelligent than the people we are hiring from abroad.

The corporations and oligarchs who yearn for cheap labour are always saying that in America as well. They say the same thing in Germany where unemployment is something like 10%.

[Heydrich]

>>>regardless of "the professor" advocates, "the professor" obviously has no regard whatsoever for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in advocating who should or should not be "allowed" to procreate.

I have no more regard for the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" than I have for the Ten Commandments.

>>>It's a crackpot idea anyways since the only way to ensure such a policy would be forced sterilisation and if that came to pass, we might as well have let Hitler's crowd get it on with it 60 years ago. This Naziism in sheeps clothing.

LOL speaking of crackpot ideas why don't you tell us more about "human rights," the notion that "rights," a political concept, arise from a construct of materialism like "humanity," instead of from power. Do I have a right to a cheeseburger because I have two hands? Humanity has never existed as a society, much less as a political entity. ROFL do cows also have the right to vote Clandestine because we are all simply mammals? Is it murder to eat fried chicken?

[opopanax]

When you're ready to get off your soapbox and actually engage, there might even be the possibility of a discussion.

However, as you know all the answers and have single-handed solved the race and IQ debate, why don't you inhabit your nasty, sterile little universe and I'll hang out with the humans.

:)

[kevlar85]

First of all I'm shocked at some of the more reasonable members of this site agreeing with this abhorrent idea and for those who do agree with it I'd like to point out the moral of the following few sentences quoted from a survivor at Auschwitz (I may be paraphrasing here but this is basically it):

First they came for the Communists, I did nothing - because I am not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, I did nothing - because I am not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Jews, I did nothing because I am not a Jew.
Then they came for me...

We are all humans and nobody has the right to take away our right to have children. Incidentally it's also against all human interest to pursue such a policy - basic GCSE Biology shows that because all humans have a different genetic code, we increase our ability to survive any future changes in our environment by reducing the number and variation in the human species we mimic the same conditions as in purely bred dogs, shorter lifespans, more diseases and less of an ability to cope with life changes.

[Namaste]

Dude, no offense but you're starting to sound like another Monocrat.

This is a flat out lie supported by no evidence whatsoever. These tests have proven to be both VALID and RELIABILE statistically, in that whatever they are measuring they are certainly doing it accurately. Do you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about? Do you know anything about statistics or research methods?

Well, seeing as I got an A on my A level sociology exam, I think I do. Life is not black and white and I'm not basing my opinion on one idealist. Do I not know about statistics? Well sweetheart, why don't you give me a link to the source where you got your statistics from and I'll explain how a correlation does not take in to account cause or effect... and then maybe I'll post some links on how factors such as socio-economic groupings can effect IQ both in health and primary socialisation.

This is another false generalization. Jensen, who I cited above, is pretty much apolitical. He is actually, imagine this, a Gandhian! The fact that IQ has a genetic component has been established for YEARS.

Actually the debate is used by right-wingers and I didn't accuse Jensen as being right - wing, otherwise I would have said he was.

Oh and I never said that IQ was 100% environmental, just like some people are born athletes... but then it helps a lot to train.

As for me mentioning Bandura, if you know about him (and anybody who has much understanding of psychology would) then you'll understand that I was using him to link to the media. I didn't accuse you of reading the Sun, but studies such as Bandura's... teamed up with Strauss point to the idea that aggression and ideas come from people seeing others do it or being brought up to act in that way.

Racial hatred is not unique to people with low IQs and as I have mentioned, Hitler is a prime example. Some people are easier influenced by others but that is because of personality, not intellect.

It is not a black and white arguement and you can't go by one or two statistics, you have to look at both sides. It sounds very elitist to me.

[Heydrich]

>>>Dude, no offense but you're starting to sound like another Monocrat.

I have no idea who this monocrat fellow is but anyway. . .

>>>Well, seeing as I got an A on my A level sociology exam, I think I do.

Good going. Sociology exams do not measure general intelligence.

>>>Life is not black and white and I'm not basing my opinion on one idealist.

Your opinion is just that, baseless, you have provided no evidence to support your claims.

>>>Do I not know about statistics? Well sweetheart, why don't you give me a link to the source where you got your statistics from and I'll explain how a correlation does not take in to account cause or effect... and then maybe I'll post some links on how factors such as socio-economic groupings can effect IQ both in health and primary socialisation.

I have already provided citations of my sources actually. Are you somehow unable to read? Furthermore, socioeconomic class does not determine IQ. East Asians overwhelmingly outscore blacks on IQ tests at all socioeconomic levels.

>>>Actually the debate is used by right-wingers and I didn't accuse Jensen as being right - wing, otherwise I would have said he was.

You sputtered out a stereotype I showed to be false.

>>>Oh and I never said that IQ was 100% environmental, just like some people are born athletes... but then it helps a lot to train.

There are all sorts of statistical methods that can be used to isolate out the socioeconomic element. There is no environmental or cultural thesis that can account for the broad differences in general intelligence amongst individuals of different races. Such ideas have proven over and over again to be untestable.

>>>As for me mentioning Bandura, if you know about him (and anybody who has much understanding of psychology would) then you'll understand that I was using him to link to the media. I didn't accuse you of reading the Sun, but studies such as Bandura's... teamed up with Strauss point to the idea that aggression and ideas come from people seeing others do it or being brought up to act in that way.

I was not brought up as a Fascist. “Aggression” does not come from “seeing other people doing it” either. Aggression is nothing more than a manifestation of will-to-power which is exhibited by all lifeforms.

>>>Racial hatred is not unique to people with low IQs and as I have mentioned, Hitler is a prime example. Some people are easier influenced by others but that is because of personality, not intellect.

I have never seen anyone accuse of Hitler of “low intelligence” quite honestly, even his fiercest critics.

>>>It is not a black and white arguement and you can't go by one or two statistics, you have to look at both sides. It sounds very elitist to me.

Your argument presupposes there is something wrong with elitism, when of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with elitism for objective morality does not exist.

[Heydrich]

>>>First of all I'm shocked at some of the more reasonable members of this site agreeing with this abhorrent idea and for those who do agree with it I'd like to point out the moral of the following few sentences quoted from a survivor at Auschwitz (I may be paraphrasing here but this is basically it):

For someone who likes to invoke the name of 'reason' it sure is ironic one would also invoke the logical fallacy of prejudicial language (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pl.php) in his argument. Buzzword phrases like 'abhorrent idea' and 'more reasonable members of this site' are simply illogical distractions, polemical words thrown into facile arguments to fool one's readers into taking a proposition seriously.

>>>First they came for the Communists, I did nothing - because I am not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists, I did nothing - because I am not a Socialist.Then they came for the Jews, I did nothing because I am not a Jew. Then they came for me...

Who was this individual? A homosexual? :lol

Oy vey! Vy me? Remember zee zix million! :lol:

>>>We are all humans and nobody has the right to take away our right to have children.

Restated: We are all (mammals) and nobody has the right to take away our right to have children.

Rights, being political in nature, do not follow from meaningless constructs of materialism such as humanity. Rights follow from POWER, that is the fact of the matter. And yes, there are those who DO have the right to take away our right to have children because get this, AUTHORITY decides.

>>>Incidentally it's also against all human interest to pursue such a policy

Humanity, being a materialist abstraction, does not have interests because groups do not possess consciousness. Way to go. :lol:

>>>basic GCSE Biology shows that because all humans have a different genetic code, we increase our ability to survive any future changes in our environment by reducing the number and variation in the human species we mimic the same conditions as in purely bred dogs, shorter lifespans, more diseases and less of an ability to cope with life changes.

Actually the overwhelming vast majority of human genetic diversity is confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, the most miserable place on earth. In contrast, Trans-Saharan populations are much much more closely related. Jews are probably the most inbred ethnic group in the world. Compare the Jews to Zimbabweans with all your precious "human diversity." So no, your argument does not follow in the slightest, this is unless you would argue that Zimbabweans have longer life spans and are less prone to diseases such as AIDS than Jews.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by opopanax
However, a quick google tells me that the "professor" has been involved in the race and intelligence "debate"

Anyways, Ms. Ripper, what do you make of this?



:confused:

Nyborg in't just "involved" in it. He started the whole uproar. And I haven't read Heydrich's post, as to be honest I don't have the patience.

Now, can I just clarify, that I do not support this. At all. But merely agree with the fact that intelligence, or no, rather the possibility to do something constructive with it, can to a great extent be connected to the social heritage. I think that Moonrat, who had Sociology would agree.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by kevlar85
First of all I'm shocked at some of the more reasonable members of this site agreeing with this abhorrent idea and for those who do agree with it I'd like to point out the moral of the following few sentences quoted from a survivor at Auschwitz (I may be paraphrasing here but this is basically it):

First they came for the Communists, I did nothing - because I am not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, I did nothing - because I am not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Jews, I did nothing because I am not a Jew.
Then they came for me...

We are all humans and nobody has the right to take away our right to have children. Incidentally it's also against all human interest to pursue such a policy - basic GCSE Biology shows that because all humans have a different genetic code, we increase our ability to survive any future changes in our environment by reducing the number and variation in the human species we mimic the same conditions as in purely bred dogs, shorter lifespans, more diseases and less of an ability to cope with life changes.

Was a protestant priest called Niemöller who spent time at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Now, can I just clarify, that I do not support this. At all. But merely agree with the fact that intelligence, or no, rather the possibility to do something constructive with it, can to a great extent be connected to the social heritage. I think that Moonrat, who had Sociology would agree.

Yup, if Heydrich can prove, as in give a link to the study that says IQ tests are a valid way to measure intellect, then maybe I'll believe him. However, take somebody with dyslexia or dyscalcula... they may score low on an IQ test, but still be very intelligent.

Your ability to do mental arithmatic, spell and understand sequencing has nothing to do with your ability to decide what you believe is right and wrong.

I have already provided citations of my sources actually. Are you somehow unable to read? Furthermore, socioeconomic class does not determine IQ. East Asians overwhelmingly outscore blacks on IQ tests at all socioeconomic levels.

Indeed, but IQ tests are still ethnocentric. East Asians? Define what you mean because different cultures have different ideas on education and learning. If the brain is stimilated enough as a child then the IQ is bound to rise... but if the parents show little interest in the child's education then they are less likely to study... thus getting lower IQ points and not fulfilling their potential... but you knew that, right? :rolleyes:

Sociology exams do not measure general intelligence.

Never said they did, I implied that I know what I'm talking about as I've studied it in college.

There are all sorts of statistical methods that can be used to isolate out the socioeconomic element. There is no environmental or cultural thesis that can account for the broad differences in general intelligence amongst individuals of different races. Such ideas have proven over and over again to be untestable.

Really, now I'm interested... do tell.

I was not brought up as a Fascist. “Aggression” does not come from “seeing other people doing it” either. Aggression is nothing more than a manifestation of will-to-power which is exhibited by all lifeforms.

Really, is that an educated opinion? Would you care to expand on that?

Your opinion is just that, baseless, you have provided no evidence to support your claims.

Name the evidence you want for me to support my opinion and I'll gladly give it you, I have more than one source.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by MoonRat
Yup, if Heydrich can prove, as in give a link to the study that says IQ tests are a valid way to measure intellect, then maybe I'll believe him. However, take somebody with dyslexia or dyscalcula... they may score low on an IQ test, but still be very intelligent.

Your ability to do mental arithmatic, spell and understand sequencing has nothing to do with your ability to decide what you believe is right and wrong.

But IQ is irrelevant in this discussion. Could be that it is in the thread title, and in the article title which was linked. But in the interviews I've heard with Nyborg, he hasn't himself used IQ testings as a scale to determine intelligence once. Hasn't mentioned IQ at all.
Fact is, he isn't stupid. He is presenting his case in the best way possible. Being controversial with his idea of what he wants to achieve is what's getting him attention. Not stupidity.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
But IQ is irrelevant in this discussion. Could be that it is in the thread title, and in the article title which was linked. But in the interviews I've heard with Nyborg, he hasn't himself used IQ testings as a scale to determine intelligence once. Hasn't mentioned IQ at all.
Fact is, he isn't stupid. He is presenting his case in the best way possible. Being controversial with his idea of what he wants to achieve is what's getting him attention. Not stupidity.

I didn't say he was stupid, I'm just presenting my side of the arguement.

And it is about IQ, that's what the title says.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by MoonRat


And it is about IQ, that's what the title says.

Yes, and I am stating that the title is misleading, as so far I haven't heard or read any account of Nyborg himself mentioning IQ at all.
Of course you could prove me wrong, but that is the state of affairs as far as I know.

[Namaste]

The topic was about whether people of a low IQ should be able to reproduce, thus I stuck up for people with low IQs. And as I said, I don't believe society will prove anymore and argued about how relative IQ is to say... morals ect.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Heydrich
Interesting article. I myself am in agreement with Professor Nyborg. Irrational moral prejudices must not hold back progress.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7416881%255E1702,00.html

Was what Heydrich stated. So it is with the starting point of Nyborg's theory that this discussion took place ;)

I am not saying that his plan is acceptable if you meassure intelligence in another scale than IQ. Just stating that Nyborg has only used the term intelligence, and not IQ. And that the discussion shouldn't be based around IQ at all, as it testes a specific kind of intelligence, which isn't relevant for anything.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Heydrich
>>>All parents pass their value systems on to their children and I challenge you to provide credible substantiation to this general rule that intelligent people (implicitly) guide their children toward good, contructive contribution to society whereas the less intelligent guide their children toward degeneracy.

LOL where did you come up with this idea? Would you say the beatniks of the 1960s inherited their value system from their parents? I skipped most of this thread, but I'd like to float the idea that, while value systems are mostly passed on through generations, relatively large, tho' ultimately shortlived, philosophical shifts can occur, particularly in modern times. The 1960's are a good example:

>Even further beyond youth rebellion was a subculture known as the "beat generation." In run down urban neighborhoods a collection of artists, intellectuals, musicians, and middle-class students dropped out of mainstream society. They sought spiritual fulfillment rather than the material success. The "beatniks" rejected what they believed was the spiritual bankruptcy of middle-class culture. They wrote an read poetry, listened to jazz, explored eastern philosophy, and experimented with drugs, mystical religion, and sex. They viewed themselves as having been driven to the fringes of civilization because they rejected the dominant culture of abundance, materialism and conformity.<

Note: rejection of the dominant culture. Sometimes the exception that proves the rule can have a higher profile than all the 'little boxes' put together, while still remaining the exception. Ginsberg and Kerouac couldn't prevent Vietnam.

[Clandestine]

It is interesting to also note that the phenomenon of the "beat" culture was not long after reassimilated into the mainstream.

Many of those who Heydrich wishes to cite to further his claim actually went on to become today's captains of industry thus demonstrating the deeper rooted value systems passed on to them in their upbringing.

[Kermit]

*takes a moment to throw anotehr firework on the bonfire*

The noted liberal John Stuart Mill argued that only intelligent people should be allowed to vote- tested on a general knowledge test and IQ test- and that the more intelligent people are the more votes that they should have.

I agree with this, because I find it ludicrous that people who know nothing- people who voted for Blair because The Sun told them to, or people who voted for Major because The Sun told them to- should hold thsi country to ransom with their stupidity. If you dont understand key political ideas, and have no interest in GK, then you should not be allowed to vote. Just because you are a person doesnt mean that the intelligent who can see how uneducated you are should have to suffer for your ignorance.

Though obviously stopping stupid people from breeding is ridiculous. Though you have to admit that poverty breeds poverty, and most people who are in poverty are there because they didnt try at school and are consequently not educated enough to better themselves without the aid of Camelot.

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by morrocan roll
nazis should not only not be alowed to breed but breath as well. scum ideas with scum values.
oh what a lovely world where all the inteligent people can sit and chat about how they themselves are so wonderful ...who's going to do the cleaning?

Hear, Bloody, Hear

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by Kermit
*takes a moment to throw anotehr firework on the bonfire*

The noted liberal John Stuart Mill argued that only intelligent people should be allowed to vote- tested on a general knowledge test and IQ test- and that the more intelligent people are the more votes that they should have.

I agree with this, because I find it ludicrous that people who know nothing- people who voted for Blair because The Sun told them to, or people who voted for Major because The Sun told them to- should hold thsi country to ransom with their stupidity. If you dont understand key political ideas, and have no interest in GK, then you should not be allowed to vote. Just because you are a person doesnt mean that the intelligent who can see how uneducated you are should have to suffer for your ignorance.
.

I agree. But the effort must salso be made to help those who are the puppets of murdoch etc to move themselves out of intellectual torpor.

[Heydrich]

>>>Even further beyond youth rebellion was a subculture known as the "beat generation." In run down urban neighborhoods a collection of artists, intellectuals, musicians, and middle-class students dropped out of mainstream society. They sought spiritual fulfillment rather than the material success. The "beatniks" rejected what they believed was the spiritual bankruptcy of middle-class culture. They wrote an read poetry, listened to jazz, explored eastern philosophy, and experimented with drugs, mystical religion, and sex. They viewed themselves as having been driven to the fringes of civilization because they rejected the dominant culture of abundance, materialism and conformity.<

Yes, just look at the world these loathsome degenerates have left their children. The last generation was the first generation in American history to leave a world to their children that was WORSE than the one they inherited. They destroyed the educational system with their ridiculous egalitarian theories. SAT scores have been in decline since the year 1963. They have left a world to their children that is BY FAR more violent than the one they inherited. More people are locked up in prison than ever before. Look at the TRILLIONS of dollars in debt these people created with their stupid credit cards, which of course, people like me will have to repay. Look at the MILLIONS of illegal aliens infesting our country, sucking off our social services until they bankrupt entire states like California. Look at the free trade policies that have annihilated our industrial base, that have created and nursed major economic rivals to health. Suicide is at an all time high in the America they created. When these people inherited America, it was 90% white. Now by the time I am their age today I will be a minority in my own country thanks to their immigration laws. They inherited a world in which their people had never lived better, the 1950s, and left a world in which their own children are discriminated against because they happen to have white skin. The words LOSER and DEGENERATE best describe the last generation. What goes around comes around though. These people are going to pay for what they did back in the 1960s about 10 years from now when they begin retiring en masse. LOL they think we have fiscal problems now? They haven't seen nothing yet. Who is going to pay for their retirement, generation diversity? ROFL, all these Mexican immigrants on welfare? Yeah right.

[Heydrich]

>>>Many of those who Heydrich wishes to cite to further his claim actually went on to become today's captains of industry thus demonstrating the deeper rooted value systems passed on to them in their upbringing.

LOL yes, we really should appreciate these "captains of industry" and their much lauded value systems. Oh yes, where is our industry today? That's right - in China, in India, in Mexico and everywhere but America employing Americans. Today's captains of industry sure are not the Henry Ford's that built a superpower in America.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Heydrich
>>>Even further beyond youth rebellion was a subculture known as the "beat generation." In run down urban neighborhoods a collection of artists, intellectuals, musicians, and middle-class students dropped out of mainstream society. They sought spiritual fulfillment rather than the material success. The "beatniks" rejected what they believed was the spiritual bankruptcy of middle-class culture. They wrote an read poetry, listened to jazz, explored eastern philosophy, and experimented with drugs, mystical religion, and sex. They viewed themselves as having been driven to the fringes of civilization because they rejected the dominant culture of abundance, materialism and conformity.<

Yes, just look at the world these loathsome degenerates have left their children. The last generation was the first generation in American history to leave a world to their children that was WORSE than the one they inherited. They destroyed the educational system with their ridiculous egalitarian theories. SAT scores have been in decline since the year 1963. They have left a world to their children that is BY FAR more violent than the one they inherited. More people are locked up in prison than ever before. Look at the TRILLIONS of dollars in debt these people created with their stupid credit cards, which of course, people like me will have to repay. Look at the MILLIONS of illegal aliens infesting our country, sucking off our social services until they bankrupt entire states like California. Look at the free trade policies that have annihilated our industrial base, that have created and nursed major economic rivals to health. Suicide is at an all time high in the America they created. When these people inherited America, it was 90% white. Now by the time I am their age today I will be a minority in my own country thanks to their immigration laws. They inherited a world in which their people had never lived better, the 1950s, and left a world in which their own children are discriminated against because they happen to have white skin. The words LOSER and DEGENERATE best describe the last generation. What goes around comes around though. These people are going to pay for what they did back in the 1960s about 10 years from now when they begin retiring en masse. LOL they think we have fiscal problems now? They haven't seen nothing yet. Who is going to pay for their retirement, generation diversity? ROFL, all these Mexican immigrants on welfare? Yeah right. Lawks a mercy. So what name did you post under before you were last banned..?

[Clandestine]

He was never banned to my knowledge.

Hateful and bigoted rhetoric though, for sure.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Clandestine
He was never banned to my knowledge. Drat! I seem to have re-entered this part of the space/time continuum two weeks ahead of schedule...

[Heydrich]

>>>He was never banned to my knowledge. Hateful and bigoted rhetoric though, for sure.

You were saying what about bigotry? Listen, what's that sound? That explosion you just heard is the sound of humanitarianism, universalism, judaized morality, Marxism and Liberalism and all like minded distortions and nonsense exploding at the pinprick of rational thought. Recent breakthroughs have shown beyond doubt that the structure of the human brain is highly heritable (http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/Press_Release.html), that IQ has genetic antecedents (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_850000/850358.stm), and, perhaps most importantly, that intelligence in mammals is modifiable (http://www.sciam.com/explorations/1999/090799mice/). Yes, Hitler was right after all. :lol:

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/genetics.jpg

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/Press_Release.html

UCLA brain mapping researchers have created the first images to show how an individual's genes influence their brain structure and intelligence.

The findings, published in the November 5 issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, offer exciting new insight about how parents pass on personality traits and cognitive abilities and how brain diseases run in families.

The team found that the amount of gray matter in the frontal parts of the brain is determined by the genetic make-up of an individual's parents, and strongly correlates with that individual's cognitive ability, as measured by intelligence test (IQ) scores.

More importantly, these are the first images to uncover how normal genetic differences influence brain structure and intelligence. Brain regions controlling language and reading skills were virtually identical in identical twins, who share exactly the same genes, while siblings showed only 60 percent of the normal brain differences. This tight structural similarity in the brains of family members helps explain why brain diseases, including schizophrenia and some types of dementia, run in families.

"We were stunned to see that the amount of gray matter in frontal brain regions was strongly inherited, and also predicted an individual's IQ score," said Paul Thompson, Ph.D., the study's chief investigator and an assistant professor of neurology at the UCLA Laboratory of Neuro Imaging. "The brain's language areas were also extremely similar in family members. Brain regions that were found to be most similar in family members may be especially vulnerable to diseases that run in families, including some forms of psychosis and dementia."

The scientists employed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology to scan a group of 20 identical twins, whose genes are identical, and 20 same-sex fraternal twins, who share half their genes. Using a high-speed supercomputer, they created color-coded images showing which parts of the brain are determined by our genetic make-up, and which are more adaptable to environmental factors, such as learning and stress.

To make the maps of genetic influences on the brain, the UCLA scientists teamed up with the National Public Health Institute of Finland, and the Finnish Universities of Helsinki and Oulu. In a national initiative, the Finnish team tracked all the same-sex twins born in Finland between 1940 and 1957 -- 9,500 pairs of twins -- many of whom received brain scans and cognitive tests. Their genetic similarity was confirmed by analyzing 78 different genetic markers. These individual pieces of DNA match exactly in identical twins, and half of them match in siblings.

Recent research has shown that many cognitive skills are surprisingly heritable, with strong genetic influences on verbal and spatial abilities, reaction times, and even some personality qualities, including emotional reactions to stress. These genetic relationships persist even after statistical adjustments are made for shared family environments, which tend to make members of the same family more similar. Until this study, little was known about how much individual genotype accounts for the wide variations among individual brains, as well as individual's cognitive ability.

The UCLA researchers are also applying this new genetic brain mapping approach to relatives of schizophrenic patients, and individuals at genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease, to screen them for early brain changes, and help understand familial risk for inherited brain disorders where specific risk genes are unknown.

[Namaste]

Firstly, whilst you like to use a lot of big words, could you please paragraph what you write? It's not an insult of course, but I and maybe some others find it difficult to follow. You have English skills don't you? (And in case you're wondering, no I'm not thick, I have Irlen's Syndrome thus making reading difficult)

This is a flat out lie supported by no evidence whatsoever. These tests have proven to be both VALID and RELIABILE statistically, in that whatever they are measuring they are certainly doing it accurately.

I'm still awaiting a link to give proof for your claims that IQ tests are valid.

So you think that by not allowing people with low IQs to procreate will somehow create a 'better society'? A person with dyslexia or say... Aspergers may score low on an IQ test, does that mean that people with disabilities, learning or communication difficulties will not be able to procreate too?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by MoonRat
So you think that by not allowing people with low IQs to procreate will somehow create a 'better society'?

At least itd create a society that didnt think Blair was honest.

A person with dyslexia or say... Aspergers may score low on an IQ test, does that mean that people with disabilities, learning or communication difficulties will not be able to procreate too?

Why *should* people with genetic defects be allowed to procreate?

[Namaste]

Why *should* people with genetic defects be allowed to procreate?

Einstein was dyslexic and Bill Gates has Aspergers (high functioning autism). Just because somebody has a disability, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights everybody else does. It doesn't mean they have nothing to offer society.

A lot of people with learning disabilities are actually highly intelligent, or have fantastic skills in other areas. For example, I once met a guy who was denied the opportunity to do art or music in school because he was dyslexic (however, he went to school a long time ago) and he is an extremely inspirational person. An amazing artist and musician since he picked up what he was denied as a hobby after leaving school. Yet his intellect never showed up on IQ tests because of his difficulty with spelling and numbers.

[Kermit]

But equally there are millions more who sit gibbering in a wheelchair for 20 years before dying. Your point means nothing.

Why is procreation and having children a RIGHT? And how can it be one, with the existence of Social Services who protect children from low standards of living?

Im genuinely curious.

[Heydrich]

>>>Firstly, whilst you like to use a lot of big words, could you please paragraph what you write? It's not an insult of course, but I and maybe some others find it difficult to follow. You have English skills don't you? (And in case you're wondering, no I'm not thick, I have Irlen's Syndrome thus making reading difficult)

That is clearly apparent.

>>>I'm still awaiting a link to give proof for your claims that IQ tests are valid.

I suppose this follows from your above comment.

"We were stunned to see that the amount of gray matter in frontal brain regions was strongly inherited, and also predicted an individual's IQ score," said Paul Thompson, Ph.D., the study's chief investigator and an assistant professor of neurology at the UCLA Laboratory of Neuro Imaging. "The brain's language areas were also extremely similar in family members. Brain regions that were found to be most similar in family members may be especially vulnerable to diseases that run in families, including some forms of psychosis and dementia."

>>>So you think that by not allowing people with low IQs to procreate will somehow create a 'better society'?

Absolutely. It will soon be possible to genetically engineer a master race, if not an entirely new human species. It will soon be time to leave humanity as we know it in the dust.

>>>A person with dyslexia or say... Aspergers may score low on an IQ test, does that mean that people with disabilities, learning or communication difficulties will not be able to procreate too?

Several things are holding us back from an unprecedented revolution in material progress. First, an archaic and discredited morality premised upon the lie that all "human beings" are equal. Second, as I mentioned before, an archaic form of government premised not upon facts but the ego of inferior people who simply cannot accept and deal with their inferiority now that it is both proven and measurable. Third, the disproportionate political power of one ethnic minority in particular that is afraid of change for political reasons.

[Namaste]

That is clearly apparent.

Maybe it is, but then I take the liberty to write in paragraphs thus proving I still have english skills.


So because I have difficulty reading I should not be allowed to have children and I'm not a valued member of society?

And just because IQ correlates with grey matter doesn't mean jack shit. As I've said before, intellect comes in many forms and an IQ test is not a valid measure of anything but numeracy and literacy skills. As I have said too many times. Numeracy and literacy has nothing to do with morals, ego or esteem and it hasn't ever been proven that it has.

Several things are holding us back from an unprecedented revolution in material progress. First, an archaic and discredited morality premised upon the lie that all "human beings" are equal.

I see, so somebody who's disabled is not an 'equal'... therefor of less worth.

Second, as I mentioned before, an archaic form of government premised not upon facts but the ego of inferior people who simply cannot accept and deal with their inferiority now that it is both proven and measurable.

So you believe in classing people on their intellect? Do you really get out much and make the effort to meet somebody who, for example holds no qualifications? It's all very nice to live in this ideal fantasy society isn't it.

It ain't gonna happen, seriously. And maybe one day you'll wake up and smell the bacon and start to meet people from all different backgrounds with an open mind. IQ does not create a person, you cannot limit somebody's rights because of how well they can add up, or how big their vocabulary is because people will get around it.

Yes this is the real world and yes we all hold ideals for how we'd like it to be and these ideals are based on our lives. As I've said before, science is still incomplete and there will always be professors with their heads in the clouds. But ce'st la vie :p

[Toadborg]

Why does anyone bother replying to Heydrich?

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Toadborg
Why does anyone bother replying to Heydrich?

People like him may not be ignored :)
Look at Germany in the thirties.

[Toadborg]

But you're not going to change his mind...........

[Dear Wendy]

No I am not. But I might as well learn about his views, to know what is being dealth with.

Ignoring the problem won't make it disappear.

[Toadborg]

Perhaps, it seems rather futile to me.....

I know enough of his views..........

[Dear Wendy]

"Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" is a phrase which is used a lot, and in this case it also applies. In order to fight something, you need to know the ins and outs of it, to build up a proper counter argument/resistance.
Simple really.

And it's a shame, cause a lot of people are disgusted with some views/ideologies and therefore refuse to have anything to do with further studies of it, which only sets them back (if you ask me).

[Clandestine]

And who here fits into that category Jacq? ;)

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Clandestine
And who here fits into that category Jacq? ;)

Care to explain? I didn't get that comment.

[Clandestine]

And it's a shame, cause a lot of people are disgusted with some views/ideologies and therefore refuse to have anything to do with further studies of it, which only sets them back (if you ask me).

In response to this comment...

[Dear Wendy]

And I still want you to clarify as I still don't get it.

[Clandestine]

I simply requested who fits into that category here as seems intimated by your comment.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Clandestine
I simply requested who fits into that category here as seems intimated by your comment.

Oh, what I had in mind was a classmate, who when discussing Hitler couldn't argument why he was repulsed by him, as he had actually never bothered to study exactly what went on during WW2. Wasn't aimed at anyone here.

[Clandestine]

Understood.

[Namaste]

I'm still waiting for him to reply to my post on the Humanity thread.

As for this thread, he comes across as a very arrogant and narrow-minded person, I doubt I can be bothered replying anymore.

Besides, he tries to confuse people with big words, yet can't doesn't seem to understand paragraphs :p

[LadyJade]

Sorry to single your comment out Moonrat, but the above personal comment is going too far. There has been a bit too much of that kind of thing going on lately, and there is NO NEED FOR IT.

All these comments about not being bothered to argue, about people being boring etc.... OK, fine, feel free to think that, but if it is so boring and tedious then please just shut up, the rest of us don't need to read you moaning!!!!

[Namaste]

I appologise.

[LadyJade]

Like I said, I am sorry to single out that comment in particular, as it is just one of many.

[Heydrich]

>>>So because I have difficulty reading I should not be allowed to have children and I'm not a valued member of society?

That is actually not my view of the matter. There are populations which in my opinion should be sterilized, but that has more to do political science and my theory of the state than anything else. As for the population ITSELF, genetic engineering will soon make it possible to select the BEST offspring from a battery of fertilized eggs. In my society, people would still have kids. The only difference being that they would have the BEST kids possible, substantially improving the quality of life over several generations.

>>>And just because IQ correlates with grey matter doesn't mean jack shit.

I actually agree with you here. There is no reason to expect inferior people to accept their own inferiority. The majority of such individuals are simply unable to deal with it, its too damaging to their self-esteem, too bruising to their egos, especially in today's politically correct environment.

>>>As I've said before, intellect comes in many forms and an IQ test is not a valid measure of anything but numeracy and literacy skills.

Once again MoonRat does not support a shred of evidence to support this view. I think I will have to side with Professor Nyborg in this instance, whose views just happen to be pretty mainstream in his field of study.

>>>As I have said too many times. Numeracy and literacy has nothing to do with morals, ego or esteem and it hasn't ever been proven that it has.

There is no such thing as a "true morality." Arguing over such a preposterous arbitrary concept is as fruitless as scouring the North Pole in an attempt to find Santa Claus.

>>>I see, so somebody who's disabled is not an 'equal'... therefor of less worth.

Worth is a subjective concept, relative in nature. Such concepts cannot be judged detached from context.

>>>So you believe in classing people on their intellect?

Absolutely. It makes much more sense than starting from the LIE that all people are equal.

>>>Do you really get out much and make the effort to meet somebody who, for example holds no qualifications? It's all very nice to live in this ideal fantasy society isn't it.

LOL one of these individuals just delivered my a pizza I believe.

>>>It ain't gonna happen, seriously.

There is nothing that can ultimately hold back science at this point from proving the genetic origin of intelligence and the falsehood of the lie that all people are equal. Several such genes have actually already been identified. Over the next ten years the deciphering of the human genome will also conclusively expose the reality of vast racial differences. Much of this has already taken place, especially in the field of medicine which is already producing new racially tailored prescription drugs.

>>>And maybe one day you'll wake up and smell the bacon and start to meet people from all different backgrounds with an open mind.

Oh believe me, I am exposed to BY FAR too many of these people to suit my tastes.

>>>IQ does not create a person, you cannot limit somebody's rights because of how well they can add up, or how big their vocabulary is because people will get around it.

Rights are social constructs. They do not follow from morality, much less concepts of materialism like humanity, but solely from political power. To say otherwise is mere wishful thinking. Liberals never describe what exists. They only tell us what should exist in some magical utopia, like the colourblind society, that lie that has never existed anywhere.

>>>Yes this is the real world and yes we all hold ideals for how we'd like it to be and these ideals are based on our lives.

The mediocre would ideally like to be equal to the superior. Unfortunately for the mediocre, wishful thinking and objective fact are not synonymous.

>>>As I've said before, science is still incomplete and there will always be professors with their heads in the clouds.

Yes, they are called Marxists these days.

[Heydrich]

The seven commentators on my two papers on racial differences in intelligence split about equally into the four (Eysenck, Miller, Weiss and Lehrl, Frank and Papp) who accepted the thesis in general terms and elaborated or suggested modifications to a number of points, and the three (Deary, Juhel and Vancata) who were unsympathetic to the papers and raise) various objections. Before answering the commentaries it may be useful to summarize the eight principal points made in my two papers.

My two papers on racial differences in intelligence were concerned to set out the evidence on a worldwide basis and to advance a theory to explain how the differences have evolved. The papers argued eight principal points.

1. In relation to a mean IQ of approximately 100 (and standard deviation of 15) for Caucasoids in Europe, North America and Australasia, Mongoloids typically obtain mean IQs in the range of 971 10, south east Asians 80-95, Amerindians 70-90, Negroids 65-81, and Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids 81-94.

2. The three major races show the same differences in reaction times as they do in intelligence, suggesting a neurological basis to the differences.

3. The mean IQs of the races are also associated with their achievements in the development of civilization during the last 5,000 years.

4. Mongoloids and Amerindians have a different pattern of intelligence from Caucasoids and Negroids, consisting of strong visuospatial abilities and weak verbal abilities.

5. The consistency of the races' levels and patterns of intelligence, found in a variety of geographical locations and over 5,000 years of history, cannot be explained in environmental terms. Therefore we have to infer the presence of genetic differences.

6. Racial differences in intelligence are associated with differences in living standards. This is best explained by the theory of genotype-environment correlation, which states that peoples construct their own environment in accordance with their genetic capabilities. A genetically intelligent people will make a superior environment.

7. If racial differences in intelligence have a genetic basis, some explanation is required for how the differences have arisen. Two possibilities were considered: (a) that the cold environments of Eurasia acted as a selection pressure on the Caucasoids and Mongoloids for enhanced intelligence necessary to solve the problems of hunting, tool and weapon making, and keeping warm; (b) among Caucasoids and Mongoloids mutant alleles may have appeared for enhanced intelligence and a shift towards a high visuospatial -- low verbal profile in the Mongoloids, and these alleles spread through the populations because they conferred a selection advantage.

8. Where populations experience selection pressure for increased intelligence, they have typically responded by evolving larger brains which have afforded the necessary enhanced problem solving, information processing and learning capacities. The same thing has apparently happened in the evolution of the human races, where brain sizes are greater in Mongoloids and decrease in the other races in accordance with their mean IQs.

. . . Furthermore, Weiss suggests that the mutant for the IQ of 130 appeared in the ancestral Caucasoid-Mongoloid population in Eurasia, possibly about 40,000 years ago, and never penetrated the Negroids or Australian Aborigines, who therefore lack the high IQ allele. The implication of this theory is that the standard deviation for intelligence should be lower in Negroids and Australian Aborigines than in Caucasoids and Mongoloids. It is well known that in the United States the standard deviation is lower in blacks as compared with whites, e.g.Jensen and Reynolds (1982) in their analysis of the WISC-R standardization data report standard deviations for the full scale IQ of 14.08 in whites and 12.75 in blacks. Owen (1989) also reports a somewhat lower standard deviation in blacks than in whites in South Africa. This interesting theory deserves further examination. . . .

http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_reply.html

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Heydrich


>>>Do you really get out much and make the effort to meet somebody who, for example holds no qualifications? It's all very nice to live in this ideal fantasy society isn't it.

LOL one of these individuals just delivered my a pizza I believe.



When you face the people you believe to be of less worth than you, how do you treat them real life? I mean, is it just opinions you hold, or do you act according to those opinions? And how would such an act be?

[Heydrich]

>>>When you face the people you believe to be of less worth than you, how do you treat them real life? I mean, is it just opinions you hold, or do you act according to those opinions? And how would such an act be?

I am actually quite polite. It is an error to confuse a healthy disdain with hatred. Do I act according to this opinions? Do you mean by that do I discuss them with others? Of course, the academic world, especially where I come from, is quite more well informed about these matters than the average lay person. What is reported in the popular media, which the average person is exposed to, is actually quite far from what is reported in specialized professional journals. For instance, there is nothing really controversial about Professor Nyborg's views in his field of study, only in the privately owned, largely Jewish, media. His opinions are rather centrist.

[Heydrich]

Interesting new article.

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-10-03-3

Biological Link Found between Mental Illness and Creativity

Gabe Romain
Betterhumans Staff
Friday, October 03, 2003, 3:26:49 PM CT


A discovery about the biological basis of creativity has shed light on its much-observed relationship with madness.

Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University in Boston say that creative people have a brain that seems to be hardwired for detecting incoming stimuli from their environment.

While other people have a brain that might shut out extraneous or seemingly unimportant information, the brain in creative individuals appears to have low levels of latent inhibition—the unconscious capacity to ignore irrelevant stimuli.

"This means that creative individuals remain in contact with the extra information constantly streaming in from the environment," says the U of T's Jordan Peterson. "The normal person classifies an object, and then forgets about it, even though that object is much more complex and interesting than he or she thinks. The creative person, by contrast, is always open to new possibilities."

Latent inhibition

Previously, scientists have attributed failure to block irrelevant stimuli with psychosis, but the researchers hypothesized that it might also contribute to unique thinking, especially when mixed with high IQ.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers administered tests of latent inhibition to Harvard undergraduates.

Those with unusually high scores in a single area of creative achievement, classified as eminent creative achievers, were seven times more likely to have low latent inhibition scores.

Latent inhibition is a good thing, the researchers hypothesize, if it is combined with high intelligence and the capacity to think about many things at once.

"If you are open to new information, new ideas, you better be able to intelligently and carefully edit and choose," says Peterson. "If you have 50 ideas, only two or three are likely to be good. You have to be able to discriminate or you'll get swamped."

Creative insanity

Scientists have long wondered why madness and creativity seem to be linked, and the new research provides a possible explanation.

"It appears likely that low levels of latent inhibition and exceptional flexibility in thought might predispose to mental illness under some conditions and to creative accomplishment under others," says Harvard's Shelley Carson.

For example, during the early stages of schizophrenia, people have reported feelings of deep insight and mystical knowledge. This may be evidence of chemical changes in which latent inhibition disappears.

"We are very excited by the results of these studies," says Peterson. "It appears that we have not only identified one of the biological bases of creativity but have moved towards cracking an age-old mystery: the relationship between genius, madness and the doors of perception."

The study is published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Heydrich
>>>When you face the people you believe to be of less worth than you, how do you treat them real life? I mean, is it just opinions you hold, or do you act according to those opinions? And how would such an act be?

I am actually quite polite. It is an error to confuse a healthy disdain with hatred. Do I act according to this opinions? Do you mean by that do I discuss them with others? Of course, the academic world, especially where I come from, is quite more well informed about these matters than the average lay person. What is reported in the popular media, which the average person is exposed to, is actually quite far from what is reported in specialized professional journals. For instance, there is nothing really controversial about Professor Nyborg's views in his field of study, only in the privately owned, largely Jewish, media. His opinions are rather centrist.

That means, you wouldn't actually show the people in question your opinion regarding their status, by for example not tipping, but would rather discuss it with people you believe to have knowledge on the field and who's opinion might actually count somewhere?

Btw, is people's worth only meassurable in intelligence or also religion, according to you?

Another thing, Nyborg didn't say anything new at all. But you have to keep in mind that Denmark is a socialist country, where there is a lot of emphasise on the term "equality". Such a thing coming openly from a well-educated Dane is not a thing to be seen and heard everyday. Secondly it has a lot to do with the way it was presented as well. Had there just been a coloum with this, people wouldn't give a shit and say "oh well". But when it was on the frontpage of the newspaper, highlighted with red writing, then of course it'll get everyone up on their feet, and then give echoes in other countries.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by Heydrich
I actually agree with you here. There is no reason to expect inferior people to accept their own inferiority. The majority of such individuals are simply unable to deal with it, its too damaging to their self-esteem, too bruising to their egos, especially in today's politically correct environment.

My IQ is usually 134 + (148 last time I checked), so really, I wouldn't imply that I'm thick... at least not by your superficial self-rightious IQ tests. According to IQ tests I'm quite bright, but my reading for example is lacking because of Scoptic Sensitivity Disorder... Thus, say I read out loud in class, I'd sound dumb because of my difficulty following writing as it appears blurred a lot... Now does that make me stupid?

Also, Asians rank higher in IQ than a lot of ethnic groups, so maybe your 'ideal society' would be entirely made up of Asians.

Once again MoonRat does not support a shred of evidence to support this view. I think I will have to side with Professor Nyborg in this instance, whose views just happen to be pretty mainstream in his field of study.

Well pardon me for being a psychology and sociology student, I know education isn't everything, but it's in my teachings where I learn

Anyway... My evidence against IQ tests being the be all and end all of intelligence...

When Robert Sternberg and his colleagues (1981) asked people to list examples of intelligent behaviour, they found that the examples fell into three categories: (1) verbal intelligence, (2) practical intelligence, and (3) social intelligence. Thus, people generally recognize three basic types of intelligence. For the most part, IQ tests only assess the first of these three types. Although IQ tests are billed as measures of general mental ability, they actually focus somewhat narrowly on a specific types of intelligence: academic/verbal intelligence. Hence, IQ tests are not valid indicators of intelligence in a truly general sense."
Taken from
[here (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~kmcguinn/kdoc/iq-reply.htm) ... I'll find more later, but I'm real tired now... been working & clubbing.

There is nothing that can ultimately hold back science at this point from proving the genetic origin of intelligence and the falsehood of the lie that all people are equal.

Just a question... do you hold the belief that you are above a lot of people? If you're so good then why aren't you funding, creating or working personally towards these new drugs and this steralisation project?

Oh believe me, I am exposed to BY FAR too many of these people to suit my tastes.

Just wondering what makes a person, in your eyes, equal to you? Academic success? Simply a high IQ or the ability to be articulate?

The mediocre would ideally like to be equal to the superior. Unfortunately for the mediocre, wishful thinking and objective fact are not synonymous.

Who in your opinion as a debate never truelly has any right or wrong answers... are these 'mediocre' people? What must one do to qualify as being superior.

For example, I've met people from private schooling, yet I respect streetwise people far more as they've seen and experienced life. I have actually got better conversations from a binman than from an Oxford graduate. Yet, because of his socioeconomic background he may not have had the opportunity to get in to an elitist university such as Oxbridge.

Yes, they are called Marxists these days.

Would the whole 'head in the clouds' idea not be applicable to any idealist then? Because it hasn't happened yet and is simply a thought and not reality.

[Heydrich]

>>>That means, you wouldn't actually show the people in question your opinion regarding their status, by for example not tipping, but would rather discuss it with people you believe to have knowledge on the field and who's opinion might actually count somewhere?

I usually prefer to discuss these matters with people who are actually educated about the subject. Do I simply strike up a conversation about racial differences with someone who may deliver me a pizza? No, that is usually far from my mind in cases like that.

>>>Btw, is people's worth only meassurable in intelligence or also religion, according to you?

No, there are all sorts of standards of measure, intelligence simply being one I would describe as being of considerable importance.

>>>Another thing, Nyborg didn't say anything new at all. But you have to keep in mind that Denmark is a socialist country, where there is a lot of emphasise on the term "equality".

Yes, I know. Its quite sad we are still literally stuck in the Dark Ages about subjects of such importance. Our situation is not all that different from the Church orthodoxy men like Galileo and Luther went up against. The oligarchs want cheap labour, so they favour importing cheap little brown third world toilers and use their money to support the big anti-racist organizations. The media is largely overwhelmingly dominated by a fanatic paranoid minority of Jews on a crusade against anything remotely race related out of fear of anti-Semitism. There are powerful forces out there which for political and ideological reasons want to keep the public ignorant about such matters.

>>>Such a thing coming openly from a well-educated Dane is not a thing to be seen and heard everyday. Secondly it has a lot to do with the way it was presented as well. Had there just been a coloum with this, people wouldn't give a shit and say "oh well". But when it was on the frontpage of the newspaper, highlighted with red writing, then of course it'll get everyone up on their feet, and then give echoes in other countries.

It took a lot of courage for him to come out against such a massive social taboo on discussion of this topic and speak the truth. It is finally getting to the point however, specifically in advances in research, where the truth simply can no longer be denied.

>>>Such a thing coming openly from a well-educated Dane is not a thing to be seen and heard everyday. Secondly it has a lot to do with the way it was presented as well. Had there just been a coloum with this, people wouldn't give a shit and say "oh well". But when it was on the frontpage of the newspaper, highlighted with red writing, then of course it'll get everyone up on their feet, and then give echoes in other countries.

Its much easier to tell people what they want to hear than to tell them exactly what they do not want to hear because it hurts their egos and conflicts with their egalitarian worldview, however wrong it may be. Nyborg knows very well that the demographic change due to massive immigration from the third world will ultimately lower the general intelligence of Denmark and socially destroy that country. Its already begun to happen.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by MoonRat


Anyway... My evidence against IQ tests being the be all and end all of intelligence...

It is said that researchers operate with 7 kinds of intelligence.

Verbal intelligence
Musical intelligence
Logic/mathematical intelligence (IQ)
Visual intelligence
Hand-craft/movement intelligence
Personality intelligence
Social intelligence


Now, in order to have a functioning society, you can prioritise these, and I assume that Heydrich has chosen Mathematical and Logical intelligence to stand taller than say Intelligence of Handcraft and movement.




Who in your opinion as a debate never truelly has any right or wrong answers... are these 'mediocre' people? What must one do to qualify as being superior.

For example, I've met people from private schooling, yet I respect streetwise people far more as they've seen and experienced life. I have actually got better conversations from a binman than from an Oxford graduate. Yet, because of his socioeconomic background he may not have had the opportunity to get in to an elitist university such as Oxbridge.


I am not saying it's easy, but if you have the skills and potential, it is possible to get into an Oxbridge institution or say one of the Ivy League Universities in the US. It's a matter of will, support from home, and work to get the scholarships which are needed. But possible it is. Sometimes it's just more easy to follow along with the rest of the crowd and getting a job which is expected of you.

Btw, you can't compare the experience of someone who's got it all from the streets and someone who's got it all from education. They are different kinds, and while one of them will know how to deal with certain situation (mostly when it onvolves people), the other will possibly have the experience of working methods, and more often than not have seen abroad cultures, and been a bit around as well.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Heydrich
>>>Btw, is people's worth only meassurable in intelligence or also religion, according to you?

No, there are all sorts of standards of measure, intelligence simply being one I would describe as being of considerable importance.

Which factors are important when comparing peoples worth according to you? And in which order?

>>>Such a thing coming openly from a well-educated Dane is not a thing to be seen and heard everyday. Secondly it has a lot to do with the way it was presented as well. Had there just been a coloum with this, people wouldn't give a shit and say "oh well". But when it was on the frontpage of the newspaper, highlighted with red writing, then of course it'll get everyone up on their feet, and then give echoes in other countries.

Its much easier to tell people what they want to hear than to tell them exactly what they do not want to hear because it hurts their egos and conflicts with their egalitarian worldview, however wrong it may be. Nyborg knows very well that the demographic change due to massive immigration from the third world will ultimately lower the general intelligence of Denmark and socially destroy that country. Its already begun to happen.

Now yes, we do have problems integrating a lot of the immigrants with Muslim backgrounds. They have another set of culture, and suddenly get to see a country where you don't have to work and can sit at home and get the financial support you need, and claim a lot of rights. The welfare system wasn't built for that mindset and is slowly crashing. But as mentioned in one of the other threads demographs are worried about the low rate of child births and concider it necessary that immigration takes place, if the whole system should be able to survive. All due to many elders and not enough people in work to support them and their rights (pensions, healthcare, etc.).

[Heydrich]

>>>Now yes, we do have problems integrating a lot of the immigrants with Muslim backgrounds. They have another set of culture, and suddenly get to see a country where you don't have to work and can sit at home and get the financial support you need, and claim a lot of rights.

LOL no joke. Where have Moslems been successfully "integrated" again, that is, anywhere in the world? The Phillippines? India? Russia perhaps? Nigeria? Sudan? The remains of Yugoslavia? What leads these people to believe that these people are actually going to be integrated? Actually, if things continue to proceed as they are going along now just the opposite is going to happen in countries like Denmark and the UK. The native inhabitants themselves are going to be the ones that are going to have to do the "integrating," that is, integrating into the new violent, impoverished, miserable third world countries that will arise in the West sometime around mid-century. Did the blacks "integrate" into Rhodesia or South Africa? Blacks have been in America for 400 years. Who would say that blacks have "integrated" into American culture?

>>>The welfare system wasn't built for that mindset and is slowly crashing.

You are right. This degenerate, cosmopolitan, consumer culture is utterly unsustainable in the long run. Why should anyone have children anymore? After all, they cost so much and that means I cannot buy that new car!

>>>But as mentioned in one of the other threads demographs are worried about the low rate of child births and concider it necessary that immigration takes place, if the whole system should be able to survive. All due to many elders and not enough people in work to support them and their rights (pensions, healthcare, etc.).

ROFL yes, I am well aware of the demographic problem. These people who suggest that the massive immigration of hundreds of millions, if not billions of non-white and non-western peoples into Europe is going to solve this problem have utterly lost their minds. The only thing that such immigration will do is guarantee the collapse of the present social system by throwing yet another element into the mix. The demographic problem will ultimately destabalize both Europe and the United States in the long run.

>>>Just wondering what makes a person, in your eyes, equal to you? Academic success? Simply a high IQ or the ability to be articulate?

No one is "equal" to me. As a person, I am unique.

>>>Who in your opinion as a debate never truelly has any right or wrong answers... are these 'mediocre' people? What must one do to qualify as being superior.

I speak specifically of blacks, hispanics, and the white trash egalitarians. What does one have to do to "qualify" to be superior? Its a combination of intelligence, ability, and attitude in my view.

>>>For example, I've met people from private schooling, yet I respect streetwise people far more as they've seen and experienced life.

Their experience generally tends to be passing on their white trash genes to their white trash children.

>>>I have actually got better conversations from a binman than from an Oxford graduate. Yet, because of his socioeconomic background he may not have had the opportunity to get in to an elitist university such as Oxbridge.

Lack of general mental ability is overwhelmingly the prime cause of poverty in the West today.

>>>Would the whole 'head in the clouds' idea not be applicable to any idealist then?

No.

>>>Because it hasn't happened yet and is simply a thought and not reality.

My reply to all the environmentalists and Marxists is quite simple - prove it. They should put their theories to the test or shut up and move to the back of the line. Compensatory education has miserably failed to erradicate the enormous Black-White intelligence gap. Massive diversity programs has barely put a dent in it. Demoralizing white students by filling them with guilt about their past has not erased it. Affirmative action has not solved it. Billions upon billions upon dollars have been thrown at this preposterous fantasy. White children have been subjected to the degeneracy that is the integrated public school system today for decades and still the gap has yet to go away. Even immersed in the same educational environment the persistant difference remains. These fanatics have had something like half a century to put their theories to a test. What do they have to show for it other than pretty much nothing?

>>>Just a question... do you hold the belief that you are above a lot of people?

Absolutely.

>>>If you're so good then why aren't you funding, creating or working personally towards these new drugs and this steralisation project?

That is not my professional field of study. I am a political scientist.

>>>When Robert Sternberg and his colleagues (1981) asked people to list examples of intelligent behaviour, they found that the examples fell into three categories: (1) verbal intelligence, (2) practical intelligence, and (3) social intelligence. Thus, people generally recognize three basic types of intelligence. For the most part, IQ tests only assess the first of these three types. Although IQ tests are billed as measures of general mental ability, they actually focus somewhat narrowly on a specific types of intelligence: academic/verbal intelligence. Hence, IQ tests are not valid indicators of intelligence in a truly general sense."

This is preposterous for not all IQ tests are even verbal in the first place. It is also nonsense because Sternberg here is asking "the people" to list examples of intelligent behaviour which is entirely arbitrary. The difference is even more profound on the more g-loaded, non-verbal reaction time tests than it is in others. :lol:

>>>
My IQ is usually 134 + (148 last time I checked), so really, I wouldn't imply that I'm thick... at least not by your superficial self-rightious IQ tests. According to IQ tests I'm quite bright, but my reading for example is lacking because of Scoptic Sensitivity Disorder... Thus, say I read out loud in class, I'd sound dumb because of my difficulty following writing as it appears blurred a lot... Now does that make me stupid?

I sincerely doubt you have an IQ of 148.

>>>Also, Asians rank higher in IQ than a lot of ethnic groups, so maybe your 'ideal society' would be entirely made up of Asians.

No, my society would consist entirely of white Europeans. "Asian" is a word that denotes nothing more than the inhabitant of a continent. All sorts of people live in "Asia," Caucasoids and Mongoloids of all stripes. It is true East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) tend to be quite intelligent. It does not however follow from such a premise that these individuals would be in anyway whatsoever necessary in my society. It would be much easier to simply dramatically raise the general intelligence of the European population through eugenic selection.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Heydrich