If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But how long do people remain call centre workers. I know several people from middle class families who did a stint in a call centre before going to a middle class job. I worked as farm labourer before going to Sandhurst. Did this make us working class...
The prejudice and division seems always to be coming from the old fashioned class warriors of the 'kill the rich' variety... There the ones marketing the idea that you're stuck in a particular class and have no wider interests outside you're narrow niche...
Normally distributed IQ results are the product of the tests themselves not science, intelligence isn't an observable variable.
If that's the case, then i'm a state tool of opression....nice. lol.
I think I'd probably agree with that.
There is no social mobility because the rich at the top piss as freely on everyone else as they did 400 years ago. All that's changed is that the shop floor is now a faceless office in a faceless industrial park.
that's fraud by the way, through many of the financial laws we have...
quoting from a finanical advice webiste
on topic i think an ideal osciety would be one in which people who have the right combination of intelligence/effort can work their way upwards in wealth and status, whilst those, even if wealthy can lose out
at the moment the government is trying to raise hradworking bright people (for the fields they're good at) without allowing for people to fall so they can take their place
giving everyone the oppurtunities to do what they want education wise without financial constraints whislt allowing selection is the best option ie remove the private school system or its subsidies, and instead of peopel of a certain age being in a certain year, let their ability decide in each subject they do (whilst giving them the basics in language and arithmetic) that and give a wider choice of education options from 14-19 - and allowing for more funding for adult education
On the idea that the "black race" is genetically inferior with regards to "intelligence", being a reason for the patterns demonstrated earlier in the thread, it is fundamentally flawed. Basically the indigenous populations of sub-saharan Africa have four times the genetic diversity than all of the non-black "races" combined. That's whites, hispanics, asians, middle-eastern, all of them. So to put "black" as a race and terms of measurement in what should be a scientifically-based experiment, is biologically meaningless. As a scientific experiment based on social reasons, however, it is natrually a perfectly acceptable label. But the results of any experiment, therefore, will only ever show us social differences, not biological ones.
Not really,smart parents will produce smart kids. To bring in the class and social environment/opportunities thing doesn't really work either, there are plenty of smart people who are working class and chose not to go to uni, get a higher pay etc etc.
I'm not a geneticist so I can't say for sure, all I know is my own experiences and obsevations.
3 different networking events to meet people doing corporate internships in banking and consultancy tonight - at Umbaba, No.5 Mayfair and The Embassy club. Decisions decisions..:chin:
About as coincidental as the results of the first ever IQ tests on military that proved that the (black) soldiers who'd never been taught to read or write, got on average much lower scores than their (white) equivalents who had been educated. But if you'd like to present any actual biological evidence for your claims, rather than basing your entire theory on your anecdotal experiences, feel free. And all of this is assuming that you regard IQ as an accurate measure of innate intelligence, and natural ability.
Sorry, you're a copper so I couldn't resist
Except surely if a parent has a high IQ then they can support and nuture the intelligence in a child. Conversations held with the child, parental teaching outside school etc all have an influence on broadening a childs knowledge and abilities. Yes I do believe genetics has something to do with it, but as has been said throughout this thread, a persons situation can have a great effect on their intelligence, so it stands to reason that a parents IQ will have a great effect as well.
They undoubtedly will, but to try and claim that is because of genetics is fairly ridiculous, to be quite honest.
Smart parents will be able to read and write, and so they will be able to read and write with their children. They will usually have the finances to support their children; not just with resources, but time too. This difference can mean that the children with the least parental support can be up to 3-4 years behind their peers when they start school, which is ground that can never be made up. So they don't bother, fail at school, go and get a low-paid job, and the cycle starts with their children. And so on and so on.
I'bve no doubt that genetics will play a role in how intelligent a child is, but environment plays a far bigger role. Send a kid to the right school and give him enough private tuition and he will get top grades in examinations, including the IQ examination- if this wasn't the case, and academic ability was purely inate, then parents wouldn't spend £30k a year sending their children to the right school.
It all comes down to whether you believe that the IQ examination is a fair and scientific test, or if it something that is taught. I firmly believe the latter, and the evidence tends to show that I'm right.
When we have children they will be at a distinct advantage over children who do not have two loving and educated parents, but that won't be because my sperm is better than an illiterate's sperm.
What makes me laugh is how Jomery seems to define intelligence based on pay packets. I'm not being arrogant to say that I'm intelligent (probably more so than Jomery as I can actually interact with real people), but because I work in the not-for-profit sector my pay is fairly small. According to pay packets Titus Bramble is more intelligent than most surgeons :chin:
The one that always gets me is in reference to people like Jade Goody and Paris Hilton, when people say things like "well she's made all that money marketing herself, so she must be more intelligent than she appears." No, she just has intelligent people around her who also stand to make a lot of money if she succeeds.
Do you honestly think people born in a lower social class, brought up in a working class family would ever be able to genuinely fit in with this sort of scene, even if they become wealthy/successful? No.
Yep. Ive had to wear dinner jackets for formals plenty of times. Anyone could blend in given the right clothing. Isnt the point that Ascot isnt just for the upper classes nowadays anyway...
It just seems to me Jomery hates poor people. There are still working classes, middle classes and upper classes but the lines are more blurred nowadays.
That doesn't look my cup of tea WHATSOEVER. Everyone looks so twee and about 20 years older than what they are.
And looks as if he has too many colors going on at once in his outfit. Sorry.
Why do you have to be a sneering little cunt all the time?
It's funny because all the "posh" people I've met, most of whom were (or parents were) far more successful that Jomery claims to be, are actually nothing like the stuck up pricks that he likes to portray them as. Maybe they just act that way to brown-nosing little shits who are only after one thing, eh?
Who's to say they'll have different attitudes and values?