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
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.
For someone who likes to invoke the name of 'reason' it sure is ironic one would also invoke the logical fallacy of prejudicial language 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!
>>>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.
>>>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.
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.
Was a protestant priest called Niemöller who spent time at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps.
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.
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:
Never said they did, I implied that I know what I'm talking about as I've studied it in college.
Really, now I'm interested... do tell.
Really, is that an educated opinion? Would you care to expand on that?
Name the evidence you want for me to support my opinion and I'll gladly give it you, I have more than one source.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
Hear, Bloody, Hear
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.
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.
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.
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, that IQ has genetic antecedents, and, perhaps most importantly, that intelligence in mammals is modifiable. Yes, Hitler was right after all.
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/genetics.jpg
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/NN/Press_Release.html
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?
At least itd create a society that didnt think Blair was honest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see, so somebody who's disabled is not an 'equal'... therefor of less worth.
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
People like him may not be ignored
Look at Germany in the thirties.