Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
This article might offer an explanation.
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/09/are-girls-too-normal-sex-differences-in.html?m=1
But yeah the president of harvard got fired for saying it was because of a lack of aptitude at the upper end, but basically what he said is supported by science.
Fuck political correctness
.MASSHOLE.So by your logic if I saw someone cheat on a test, I should cheat on it as well because then it will be fair?Jesus. For someone with a supposedly high IQ and SAT scores you have pretty poor logic.
And to be frank the SAT are honestly a crock of horse shit anyway. No employer will care about your SAT score. And before you claim I did not do well on them, I ended up with a 32 on my ACT and a 2150 on the SAT.
Dude, chill. Your analogy is retarded. Dropping my uni and scores on ppl isnt akin to cheating.
And sats arent a crock of shit. They are highly g loaded, meaning they reflect strongly on your intelligence. Some employers are actually starting to use them, as was brought up in another thread.
Most ppl in the sats are worthless camp did poorly or had kids who did poorly, regardless of whether you did well or not. Its the same as ppl denying the validity of iq, even tho its the single best predictor of how rich your going to be, whether you become a criminal, divorce rates, and many other things.
cool_nameno, it is probably more along lines of 'engineer is about building stuff, i dont like building stuff, so i will do regular sciences'. Yes, i know there is more to engineering than building stuff, but that is how the majority of society generalizes it and the majority of people think it is about.Cool_name is a human
cool_name drives a miata
All humans drive a miata
see the flaw in that reasoning? just because some people in class can achieve things doesn't mean everyone in a class can achieve the same thing. The article never said women couldn't be engineers, just that fewer women could be engineers than guys could.
Ever wonder why? Could it be possible that companies market their product to the group which they are most likely to sell in?
On average it seems guys like building things and putting stuff together more than girls. To the average person a degree in engineering means you are going to build stuff, so obliviously the group that is drawn to building stuff is going to be more inclined to enter that field.
The article wasn't trying to say that all men are smarter. It was just saying that men deviate more than women do in there iq scores, meaning that yes there will be more guys with super high iqs than girls, but also that there will be more guys who are complete idiots than there are girls
"This shows that girls predominate over boys at the centre of the intelligence range" direct quote from the article. Please reply with 'yes, but this was only a small part of the article' because then I can explain to that 'yes that is true, because the article was about the extremes, more specifically the high extreme, rather than the middle'.
Omg youre a sexist racist bigot my sister is so smart your retarded omg...
Basically what we are up against coolname..
SpssDude, chill. Your analogy is retarded. Dropping my uni and scores on ppl isnt akin to cheating.And sats arent a crock of shit. They are highly g loaded, meaning they reflect strongly on your intelligence. Some employers are actually starting to use them, as was brought up in another thread.
Most ppl in the sats are worthless camp did poorly or had kids who did poorly, regardless of whether you did well or not. Its the same as ppl denying the validity of iq, even tho its the single best predictor of how rich your going to be, whether you become a criminal, divorce rates, and many other things.
My point with that analogy is that just because someone else is doing it does not mean you should. Simple enough concept. Show humility in the world. That will get you much further than a high SAT or IQ score. No one wants to work with or for a pretentious asshole.
Can I ask for sources on that second statement in the second paragraph? Not to be a dick but I am actually intrigued on how true that is.
SpssIf i had said, in my (insert whatever joke comm college you went to) class, it wouldnt hold water.
Perhaps somehow you have managed to get a job somewhere, but with your pretentious attitude you're not going to go anywhere, noone will ever want to work with you. You also seem to be forgetting that my ACT's/GRE's put me at a higher level of IQ (which you just so love reminding us all about in every other thread) than you despite the fact that I went to a "joke community college" (aka a top 20 biomed school). The bottom line is you think you're above everyone because you went to princeton, which is a complete joke. What did you major in btw?
SpssIts the same as ppl denying the validity of iq, even tho its the single best predictor of how rich your going to be, whether you become a criminal, divorce rates, and many other things.
Wrong. 100% wrong. The single biggest predictor of how rich you're going to be is privilege at birth.
It might be the biggest predictor of wealth when comparing across similar societal and economic classes.
The top 1 million smartest humans born to families with income of less than $1000/year will no doubt 9 times out of 10 end up less well off than the top 1 million dumbest humans born to families with income over $10 million a year.
Also I do deny validity of IQ tests. Some of the most intelligent people I know, people who I would far prefer to have work for me over almost anyone else for most situations, would probably score very average on IQ tests. Problem being that IQ tests are very limited in what they test. It's an incredibly narrow fraction of the workings of the human brain.
For instance one person who comes to mind takes a bit more time figuring stuff out than most people, but they figure stuff out in quite genius ways that nobody else will think to do. Very out of the box thinking that will get the right answer in a totally different method that, for many applications, will shed a hugely different light on the problem. But, they would score terribly on an IQ test since time is a factor. They're still far more intelligent than most people I know, but just have a totally different approach and method of thinking which would not score well on an IQ test.
VinnieFWrong. 100% wrong. The single biggest predictor of how rich you're going to be is privilege at birth.It might be the biggest predictor of wealth when comparing across similar societal and economic classes.
The top 1 million smartest humans born to families with income of less than $1000/year will no doubt 9 times out of 10 end up less well off than the top 1 million dumbest humans born to families with income over $10 million a year.
You are presuming their is no correlation between your iq and your parents iq.
VinnieFWrong. 100% wrong. The single biggest predictor of how rich you're going to be is privilege at birth.It might be the biggest predictor of wealth when comparing across similar societal and economic classes.
The top 1 million smartest humans born to families with income of less than $1000/year will no doubt 9 times out of 10 end up less well off than the top 1 million dumbest humans born to families with income over $10 million a year.
Also I do deny validity of IQ tests. Some of the most intelligent people I know, people who I would far prefer to have work for me over almost anyone else for most situations, would probably score very average on IQ tests. Problem being that IQ tests are very limited in what they test. It's an incredibly narrow fraction of the workings of the human brain.
For instance one person who comes to mind takes a bit more time figuring stuff out than most people, but they figure stuff out in quite genius ways that nobody else will think to do. Very out of the box thinking that will get the right answer in a totally different method that, for many applications, will shed a hugely different light on the problem. But, they would score terribly on an IQ test since time is a factor. They're still far more intelligent than most people I know, but just have a totally different approach and method of thinking which would not score well on an IQ test.
Part of an valid iq test isnt time dependant. How long it takes you to solve something doesnt matter; someone who can solve 9 out of 10 problems quickly but cant solve the 10th isnt as smart as someone who can solve all 10 given the time.
I dont feel like arguing with someone who talks out of their ass the way you do. Google " the bell curve" and read the wiki page on it. Then come back here and tell me tge nobel prize winning economist who praises the book isnt as informed as you are.
cool_nameYou are presuming their is no correlation between your iq and your parents iq.
This is true. Children of rich parents are usually smarter than children of poor parents. Iq is 40to 80 percent heritable.
And iq has been shown to be more predictive of ses than parents ses. Vinnie like i said stop talking out of your ass and read up on the bell curve.
cool_nameYou are presuming their is no correlation between your iq and your parents iq.
let's reword it. take those with an IQ above 120 who come from families with minimal income. take those with an IQ below 90 who come from families with massive income. see which group ends up with more wealth. It certainly won't bode well for mr economist's theory.
refined to the largest indicator of wealth for those with the same base education and similar social upbringing and coming from similar privilege etc etc, then yes I could see it being true. incredibly flawed otherwise.
VinnieFlet's reword it. take those with an IQ above 120 who come from families with minimal income. take those with an IQ below 90 who come from families with massive income. see which group ends up with more wealth. It certainly won't bode well for mr economist's theory.refined to the largest indicator of wealth for those with the same base education and similar social upbringing and coming from similar privilege etc etc, then yes I could see it being true. incredibly flawed otherwise.
Vinnie im getting quite disgusted with the feces coming out of your mouth. You arent going to find many 90 iq borderline retards coming from parents with "massive income". Their parents are rich for a reason, or their grandparents were rich for a reason, and by age 18 iq is 82% heritable. If you did find them though, the kid with a 120 iq will easily outperform the 90 iq kid if given the same opportunities, and opportunities are abundant in america.
The thing is tho, you see a rich kid with a 90 iq and a very poor kid with a 120 almost never.
Shut the fuck up and read up on the bell curve. I prefer something praised by a nobel prize winning economist to some jackass like you
SpssVinnie im getting quite disgusted with the feces coming out of your mouth. You arent going to find many 90 iq borderline retards coming from parents with "massive income". Their parents are rich for a reason, or their grandparents were rich for a reason, and by age 18 iq is 82% heritable. If you did find them though, the kid with a 120 iq will easily outperform the 90 iq kid if given the same opportunities, and opportunities are abundant in america.The thing is tho, you see a rich kid with a 90 iq and a very poor kid with a 120 almost never.
Shut the fuck up and read up on the bell curve. I prefer something praised by a nobel prize winning economist to some jackass like you
you really go apeshit. your stupidity, elitist ignorance and racism are so deeply rooted within you that it is useless to even argue with you. one pseudo-scientific book is not representative of what 95% or even 50% of scientists say. go fucking read another book you tool.
so ALL rich guys are intelligent and ALL stupid guys are poor? uganda be kidding me.
there is no scientific consensus on your intelligence heritage argument btw.
Spssthe validity of iq, even tho its the single best predictor of how rich your going to be, whether you become a criminal, divorce rates, and many other things.
why is anyone even responding to this anymore? this sentence is scientific proof that OP is just fucking with people now.
please let this thread die
feihlinationso ALL rich guys are intelligent and ALL stupid guys are poor? uganda be kidding me.there is no scientific consensus on your intelligence heritage argument btw.
Where did he say ALL? He said most a big difference.
You would think somebody wouldn't have to seriously misrepresent an argument to defeat it, unless it was sound and valid.
Things are changing in physics and astronomy. Look at the stats from the current generation of students. We are seeing more women in these programs than ever before. At my school, 21% of physics/astronomy majors are women, and the undergrad class is closer to a 2:1 ratio. It's not great, but compared to what it used to be it is a step in the right direction.
As this current generation starts getting into academic positions, I think we will see a lot more women in the field. Currently it's quite pathetic though. Most physics/astronomy faculties are like 95% men.
shocker611yeah it's not even worth wasting the energy of clicking buttons on a keyboard responding to his shit. Just let him live in his rich kid princeton bubble and think he's got it all figured out
Chances are, since i did go to princeton, and was smarter than most of the kids there, that i have it figured out alot better than some lowlife like you.
feihlinationyou really go apeshit. your stupidity, elitist ignorance and racism are so deeply rooted within you that it is useless to even argue with you. one pseudo-scientific book is not representative of what 95% or even 50% of scientists say. go fucking read another book you tool.so ALL rich guys are intelligent and ALL stupid guys are poor? uganda be kidding me.
there is no scientific consensus on your intelligence heritage argument btw.
Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed an opinion statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[8] endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal
Feilination, like i have said, you are willing to lie about what makes the races different, and im not. That makes you the conceited fucking racist my friend. Go jack off in the mirror. You really have some complex about appearing innocent and attractive to yourelf. Im guessing thats the reason why you are the way you are.
RparrI have a really hard time believing somebody so utterly fucking retarded got into princeton.But thanks for the show, kid. It's been a good laugh reading your insane shit.
What is it that you think would characterize someone who went there? Are you that pathetic that you have some vision in your head of the typical princeton grad as some super scholarly individual who walks on water? Guess what, we are normal kids... Just alot smarter than you. Faking intellectualism and scholarliness wont get you into princeton. Being smart will. Thats why someone like you would never have a chance in hell. But thanks for playing
yuckwhy is anyone even responding to this anymore? this sentence is scientific proof that OP is just fucking with people now.please let this thread die
Disbelief in something thats true is a verifiable sign of lack of intelligence. Dont worry yuck. The world is flat. You can go to sleep in peace now.
cool_nameWhere did he say ALL? He said most a big difference.You would think somebody wouldn't have to seriously misrepresent an argument to defeat it, unless it was sound and valid.
Theyre fucking pathetic dude. Dont even waste you time on these state school jackasses.
And feilnation, i know youve read this already, and pretended it never happened, so that you can continue calling me a racist, but these are the views i espouse. Your the fatherfucking racist, not me.
Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
- Declaration of Independence
Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. " Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."
I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
If this suggestion makes you angry-if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable-you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."
The same values-equality, hope, and brotherhood-are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.
Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap. You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity. The only thing you can reasonably infer is that anyone who presumes to rate your IQ based on the color of your skin is probably dumber than you are.
So, what should we make of the difference in averages?
We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.
How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.
According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.
I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.
Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.
Critics think IQ tests are relative-i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues psychologist Robert Sternberg. "In a warrior society physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.
In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.
How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.
Not that that's much consolation if you're stuck in the 21st century with a low IQ. Tomorrow we'll look at some of the arguments against the genetic theory.
PART TWO
Yesterday,we looked at evidence for a genetic theory of racial differences in IQ. Today let's look at some of the arguments against it. Again, I'm drawing heavily on a recent exchange of papers published by the American Psychological Association.
One objection is that IQ tests are racially biased. This is true in the broadest sense: On average, African and Asian kids have different advantages, and IQ tests focus on the things at which more Asian kids have the edge. But in the narrower sense of testing abilities that pay off in the modern world, IQ tests do their job. They accurately predict the outcomes of black and white kids at finishing high school, staying employed, and avoiding poverty, welfare, or jail. They also accurately predict grades and job performance in modern Africa. The SAT, GRE, and tests in the private sector and the armed forces corroborate the racial patterns on IQ tests. Kids of different backgrounds find the same questions easy or hard. Nor do tests always favor a country's ethnic majority. In Malaysia, Chinese and Indian minorities outscore Malays.
If the tests aren't racist, some critics argue, then society is. That's true, in the sense that racism persists. But that alone can't account for the patterns in IQ scores. Why do blacks in the white-dominated United States score 15 points higher than blacks in black-dominated African countries, including countries that have been free of colonial rule for half a century? And why do Asian-Americans outscore white Americans?
Another common critique is that race is a fuzzy concept. By various estimates, 20 percent to 30 percent of the genes in "black" Americans actually came from Europe. Again, it's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic explanation. Black Americans, like "colored" South Africans, score halfway between South African blacks and whites on IQ tests. The lowest black IQ averages in the United States show up in the South, where the rate of genetic blending is lowest. There's even some biological evidence: a correlation between racial "admixture" and brain weight. Reading about studies of "admixture" is pretty nauseating. But the nausea doesn't make the studies go away.
My first reaction, looking at this pattern, was that if the highest-scoring blacks are those who have lighter skin or live in whiter countries, the reason must be their high socioeconomic status relative to other blacks. But then you have to explain why, on the SAT, white kids from households with annual incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 easily outscore black kids from households with annual incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. You also have to explain why, on IQ tests, white kids of parents with low incomes -and low IQs outscore black kids of parents with high incomes and high IQs. Or why Inuits and Native Americans outscore American blacks.
The current favorite alternative to a genetic explanation is that black kids grow up in a less intellectually supportive culture. This is a testament to how far the race discussion has shifted to the right. Twenty years ago, conservatives were blaming culture, while liberals blamed racism and poverty. Now liberals are blaming culture because the emerging alternative, genetics, is even more repellent.
The best way to assess the effects of culture and socioeconomic status is to look at trans-racial adoptions, which combine one race's genes with another's environment. Among Asian-American kids, biological norms seem to prevail. In one study, kids adopted from Southeast Asia, half of whom had been hospitalized for malnutrition, outscored the U.S. IQ average by 20 points. In another study, kids adopted from Korea outscored the U.S. average by two to 12 points, depending on their degree of malnutrition. In a third study, Korean kids adopted in Belgium outscored the Belgian average by at least 10 points, regardless of their adoptive parents' socioeconomic status.
Studies of African-American kids are less clear. One looked at children adopted into white upper-middle class families in Minnesota. The new environment apparently helped: On average, the kids exceeded the IQ norms for their respective populations. However, it didn't wipe out racial differences. Adopted kids with two white biological parents slightly outscored kids with one black biological parent, who in turn significantly outscored kids with two black biological parents. The most plausible environmental explanation for this discrepancy is that the half-black kids (in terms of their number of black biological parents) were treated better than the all-black kids. But the study shot down that theory. Twelve of the half-black kids were mistakenly thought by their adoptive parents to be all-black. That made no difference. They scored as well as the other half-black kids.
In Germany, a study of kids fathered by foreign soldiers and raised by German women found that kids with white biological dads scored the same as kids with biological dads of "African" origin. Hereditarians (scholars who advocate genetic explanations) complain that the sample was skewed because at least 20 percent of the "African" dads were white North Africans. I find that complaint pretty interesting, since it implies that North Africans are a lot smarter than other "whites." Their better critique is that the pool of blacks in the U.S. military had already been filtered by IQ tests. Even environmentalists (scholars who advocate nongenetic explanations) concede that this filter radically distorted the numbers. But again, the complaint teaches a lesson: In any nonrandom pool of people, you can't deduce even average IQ from race.
Other studies lend support to both sides. In one study, half-black kids scored halfway between white and black kids, but kids with white moms and black dads (biologically speaking) scored nine points higher than kids with black moms and white dads. In another study, black kids adopted into white middle-class families scored 13 points higher than black kids adopted into black middle-class families, and both groups outscored the white average.
Each camp points out flaws in the other's studies, and the debate is far from over. But when you boil down the studies, they suggest three patterns. One, better environments produce better results. Two, moms appear to make a difference, environmentally and biologically. (Their biological influence could be hormonal or nutritional rather than genetic.) Three, underneath those factors, a racial gap persists. One problem with most of the adoption studies is that as a general rule, genetic differences in IQ tend to firm up in adolescence. And in the only study that persisted to that point (the one in Minnesota), kids scored on average according to how many of their biological parents were black.
The best argument against genetics isn't in these studies. It's in data that show shrinkage of the black-white IQ gap over time. From these trends, environmentalists conclude that the gap is closing to zero. Hereditarians read the data differently. They agree that the gap closed fractionally in the middle decades of the 20th century, but they argue that scores in the last two to three decades show no improvement.
I've been soaking my head in each side's computations and arguments. They're incredibly technical. Basically, the debate over the IQ surge is a lot like the debate over the Iraq troop surge, except that the sides are reversed. Here, it's the liberals who are betting on the surge, while the conservatives dismiss it as illogical and doomed. On the one hand, the IQ surge is hugely exciting. If it closes the gap to zero, it moots all the putative evidence of genetic barriers to equality. On the other hand, the case for it is as fragile as the case for the Iraq surge. You hope it pans out, but you can't see why it would, given that none of the complicating factors implied by previous data has been adequately explained or taken into account. Furthermore, to construe meaningful closure of the IQ gap in the last 20 years, you have to do a lot of cherry-picking, inference, and projection. I have a hard time explaining why I should go along with those tactics when it comes to IQ but not when it comes to Iraq.
When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments, I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don't see conclusive evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don't see closure of the racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can't be reconciled with the surge or explained by current environmental theories. I hope the surge surprises me. But in case it doesn't, I want to start thinking about how to be an egalitarian in an age of genetic difference, even between races. More on that tomorrow.
PART THREE
Why write about this topic? Why hurt people's feelings? Why gratify bigots?
Because truth matters. Because the truth isn't as bad as our ignorant, half-formed fears and suspicions about it. And because you can't solve a problem till you understand it.
Two days ago, I said we could fight the evidence of racial differences in IQ, or we could accept it. Yesterday, I outlined the difficulty of fighting it. What happens if we accept it? Can we still believe in equality?
Let's look past our fears and caricatures and see what the evidence actually teaches us.
1. Individual IQ can't be predicted from race. According to the data , at least 15 percent to 20 percent of black Americans exceed the average IQ of white Americans. If you think it's safe to guess that a white job applicant is smarter than a black one, consider this: The most important job in the world is president of the United States. Over the last seven years, the most important judgment relevant to that job was whether to authorize, endorse, or oppose the use of force in Iraq. Among the dozen viable candidates who have applied for the job, one is black. Guess which one got it right?
2. Subgroup IQ can't be predicted from race. Go back and look at the German study I mentioned yesterday. Kids fathered by black soldiers scored the same as kids fathered by white soldiers. The explanation offered by hereditarians was that blacks in the military were screened for IQ, thereby wiping out the racial IQ gap.
Think about that explanation. It undermines the claim, attributed to James Watson by the Times of London, that " people who have to deal with black employees" find equality untrue. (The Times purports to have Watson's interview on tape but hasn't published the whole quote or responded to requests for it.) If employment screens out lower IQs, you can't infer squat about black employees. And that isn't the only confounding factor. Every time a study highlights some group of blacks who score well, hereditarians argue that the sample isn't random. That may be true, but it's also true of the people you live next to, work with, and meet on the street. Every black person in your office could have an IQ over 120.
3. Whitey does not come out on top. If you came here looking for material for your Aryan supremacy Web site, sorry. Stratifying the world by racial IQ will leave your volk in the dust. You might want to think about marrying a nice Jewish girl from Hong Kong. Or maybe reconsider that whole stratification idea.
4. Racism is elitism minus information. No matter how crude race is as a proxy for intelligence, some people will use it that way, simply because they can see your skin but not your brain. What if we cut out the middleman? What if, instead of keeping individual IQs secret, we made them more transparent? If you don't accept IQ, pick some other measure of intelligence. You may hate labeling or "tracking" kids by test scores, but it's better than covering up what's inside their heads and leaving them to be judged, ignorantly, by what's on the surface.
5. Intermarriage is closing the gap. To the extent that IQ differences are genetic, the surest way to eliminate them is to reunite the human genome. This is already happening, including in my own family. In 1970, 1 percent of U.S. marriages were between blacks and nonblacks. By 1990, it was 4.5 percent. It may be the best punch line of the IQ debate: The more genetic the racial gap is, the faster we can obliterate it.
6. Environment matters. Genetic and environmental theories aren't mutually exclusive. Hereditarians admit that by their own reading of the data, nongenetic factors account for 20 percent to 50 percent of IQ variation. They think malnutrition, disease, and educational deprivation account for a big portion of the 30-point IQ gap between whites and black Africans. They think alleviation of these factors in the United States has helped us halve the deficit. Transracial adoption studies validate this. Korean adoption studies suggest a malnutrition effect of perhaps 10 IQ points. And everyone agrees that the black-white IQ gap closed significantly during the 20th century, which can't have been due to genes.
7. IQ is like wealth. Many people who used to condemn differences in wealth have learned to accept them. Instead of demanding parity, they focus on elevating everyone to an acceptable standard of living. Why not treat IQ the same way? This seems particularly reasonable if we accept IQ in the role for which science has certified it: not as a measure of human worth, but as a predictor of modern social and economic success.
As it turns out, raising the lowest IQs is a lot easier than equalizing higher IQs, because you can do it through nutrition, medicine, and basic schooling. As these factors improve, IQs have risen. If racial differences persist, is that really so awful? Conversely, if we can raise the lowest IQs, isn't that enough to justify the effort? One of the strangest passages in IQ scholarship is a recent attempt by hereditarians to minimize their own mediated-learning study because, while it "did raise the IQ of the African students from 83 to 97, this is still low for students at a leading university." You've got to be kidding. Screw the other universities. Going from 83 to 97 is a screaming success.
8. Life is more than g. Every time black scores improve on a test, hereditarians complain that the improvement is on "subject-specific knowledge," not on g (general intelligence). But the more you read about progress in things other than g, the more you wonder: Does g expose the limits of the progress? Or does the progress expose the limits of g?
If the progress were on g, the test-takers' lives would be easier, since g helps you apply what you've learned to new contexts. But that doesn't make other kinds of progress meaningless. People with low IQs can learn subject by subject. And they may have compensating advantages. One of my favorite disputes in the IQ literature is about test scores in Africa. Environmentalists argued that African kids lacked motivation. Hereditarians replied that according to their own observations, African kids stayed longer to check their answers than white kids did. Diligence, too, is a transferable asset.
9. Children are more than an investment. All the evidence on race and IQ says black kids do better at younger ages, particularly with help from intervention programs. Later, the benefits fade. Hereditarians say this is genetics taking over, as happens with IQ generally. Suppose that's true. We don't abandon kids who are statistically likely to get fatal genetic diseases in their teens or 20s. Why write off kids whose IQ gains may not last? The economics may not pay off, but what about human rights?
10. Genes can be changed. Hereditarians point to phenylketunuria as an example of a genetic but treatable cognitive defect. Change the baby's diet, and you protect its brain. They also tout breast-feeding as an environmental intervention. White women are three times more likely than black women to breast-feed their babies, they observe, so if more black women did it, IQs might go up. But now it turns out that breast-feeding, too, is a genetically regulated factor. As my colleague Emily Bazelon explains, a new study shows that while most babies gain an average of seven IQ points from breast-feeding, some babies gain nothing from it and end up at a four-point disadvantage because they lack a crucial gene.
The study's authors claim it "shows that genes may work via the environment to shape the IQ, helping to close the nature versus nurture debate." That's true if you have the gene. But if you don't, nurture can't help you. And guess what? According to the International Hapmap Project, 2.2 percent of the project's Chinese-Japanese population samples, 5 percent of its European-American samples, and 10 percent of its Nigerian samples lack the gene. The Africans are twice as likely as the Americans, and four times as likely as the Asians, to start life with a four-point IQ deficit out of sheer genetic misfortune.
Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it.
No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
SpssWhat is it that you think would characterize someone who went there? Are you that pathetic that you have some vision in your head of the typical princeton grad as some super scholarly individual who walks on water? Guess what, we are normal kids... Just alot smarter than you. Faking intellectualism and scholarliness wont get you into princeton. Being smart will. Thats why someone like you would never have a chance in hell. But thanks for playing
should replace "smart" with "rich". Besides, it doesn't matter if you can "get in" to a top tier school, or any school for that matter, what matters is if you can learn your shit and get into a good graduate program. You are gonna learn more or less the same stuff at Princeton as you would at any other university. No one gives a shit if you did your undergrad at Princeton. If you did a PhD there then it's a different story.
cool_nameno, it is probably more along lines of 'engineer is about building stuff, i dont like building stuff, so i will do regular sciences'. Yes, i know there is more to engineering than building stuff, but that is how the majority of society generalizes it and the majority of people think it is about.Cool_name is a human
cool_name drives a miata
All humans drive a miata
see the flaw in that reasoning? just because some people in class can achieve things doesn't mean everyone in a class can achieve the same thing. The article never said women couldn't be engineers, just that fewer women could be engineers than guys could.
Ever wonder why? Could it be possible that companies market their product to the group which they are most likely to sell in?
On average it seems guys like building things and putting stuff together more than girls. To the average person a degree in engineering means you are going to build stuff, so obliviously the group that is drawn to building stuff is going to be more inclined to enter that field.
The article wasn't trying to say that all men are smarter. It was just saying that men deviate more than women do in there iq scores, meaning that yes there will be more guys with super high iqs than girls, but also that there will be more guys who are complete idiots than there are girls
"This shows that girls predominate over boys at the centre of the intelligence range" direct quote from the article. Please reply with 'yes, but this was only a small part of the article' because then I can explain to that 'yes that is true, because the article was about the extremes, more specifically the high extreme, rather than the middle'.
My apologies, I'm still learning the new quoting tool....
Of course, but I don't think the answer is black or white. I think any educated person would acknowledge that these issues are almost always multi-factoral.
We can all argue about where we went to school and why each of our degrees were the hardest. But I think on some level we can all admit gender stereotypes do exist. The types of games we play as children does impact the type of learning we excel in at the later stage. Thats a fact. Obviously there are some differences between males and females but it isn't the factor.
shocker611I honestly didn't read almost any of that long ass book you just wrote but... you still haven't answered my question, what did you major in spss?
Eeb (bio)
Diracshould replace "smart" with "rich". Besides, it doesn't matter if you can "get in" to a top tier school, or any school for that matter, what matters is if you can learn your shit and get into a good graduate program. You are gonna learn more or less the same stuff at Princeton as you would at any other university. No one gives a shit if you did your undergrad at Princeton. If you did a PhD there then it's a different story.
My parents had no influence and donated no money to get in, although for alot of people that is the case.
For the most part, however, princeton kids are alot smarter than kids from any state school.
The admissions dept is very particular with who gets in; thousands of kids who were the top of their class dont get in. Its like a guantlet. Getting in is like the gold ticket to wonkas factory. The diff between schools like princeton yale harvard stanford and mit, and any school is that at top tier schools you spend most of your time in a microcosm with people of very high calibre. It becomes a positive feedback situation that nurtures the most capable part of your mind.
For example if you took classes at harvard but lived with crackheads, you wouldnt really be getting the whole package of a harvard education.
Surrounding yourself with intelligence is good for your own, and although i have some big headed enemies on ns, most ppl in real life want to be my friend for this reason.
Some people on ns are quite intelligent themselves, because they tend to give me respect.
Lot of fakes here tho. But like they say, fake it till you make it.
SpssEeb (bio)My parents had no influence and donated no money to get in, although for alot of people that is the case.
For the most part, however, princeton kids are alot smarter than kids from any state school.
The admissions dept is very particular with who gets in; thousands of kids who were the top of their class dont get in. Its like a guantlet. Getting in is like the gold ticket to wonkas factory. The diff between schools like princeton yale harvard stanford and mit, and any school is that at top tier schools you spend most of your time in a microcosm with people of very high calibre. It becomes a positive feedback situation that nurtures the most capable part of your mind.
For example if you took classes at harvard but lived with crackheads, you wouldnt really be getting the whole package of a harvard education.
Surrounding yourself with intelligence is good for your own, and although i have some big headed enemies on ns, most ppl in real life want to be my friend for this reason.
Some people on ns are quite intelligent themselves, because they tend to give me respect.
Lot of fakes here tho. But like they say, fake it till you make it.
Its cool that you're sharing the knowledge brotha. But I don't think its fair to assume that any of us who did our undergrad at a public institution received less of an education.
You have bought into a system, I understand that. And what I say may not apply as I'm Canadian. But the benefits of going to a top tier school vs. a public school were not worth it financially. I'm sure you had nicer buildings, and smaller classes, but in the end I doubt the material you covered was any different (faculty dependent obviously).
SpssEeb (bio)My parents had no influence and donated no money to get in, although for alot of people that is the case.
For the most part, however, princeton kids are alot smarter than kids from any state school.
The admissions dept is very particular with who gets in; thousands of kids who were the top of their class dont get in. Its like a guantlet. Getting in is like the gold ticket to wonkas factory. The diff between schools like princeton yale harvard stanford and mit, and any school is that at top tier schools you spend most of your time in a microcosm with people of very high calibre. It becomes a positive feedback situation that nurtures the most capable part of your mind.
For example if you took classes at harvard but lived with crackheads, you wouldnt really be getting the whole package of a harvard education.
Surrounding yourself with intelligence is good for your own, and although i have some big headed enemies on ns, most ppl in real life want to be my friend for this reason.
Some people on ns are quite intelligent themselves, because they tend to give me respect.
Lot of fakes here tho. But like they say, fake it till you make it.
Somehow I doubt anyone wants to be your friend. You sound like a total stuck up prick who underachieves compared to those around him so is justifying it by convincing he's better than everyone else.
just the impression I get.
Download-My-AppsIts cool that you're sharing the knowledge brotha. But I don't think its fair to assume that any of us who did our undergrad at a public institution received less of an education.You have bought into a system, I understand that. And what I say may not apply as I'm Canadian. But the benefits of going to a top tier school vs. a public school were not worth it financially. I'm sure you had nicer buildings, and smaller classes, but in the end I doubt the material you covered was any different (faculty dependent obviously).
Depends on the school and who you choose to hang out with.
VinnieFSomehow I doubt anyone wants to be your friend. You sound like a total stuck up prick who underachieves compared to those around him so is justifying it by convincing he's better than everyone else.just the impression I get.
I dont know why anybody would want to be my friend either. Maybe because im good looking, idk.
But in real life if you met me youd probably want to be my friend while i would find you an utterly uninteresting person. I can say what i want on the internet. In real life tho people actually think im a good person.
SpssDepends on the school and who you choose to hang out with.I dont know why anybody would want to be my friend either. Maybe because im good looking, idk.
But in real life if you met me youd probably want to be my friend while i would find you an utterly uninteresting person. I can say what i want on the internet. In real life tho people actually think im a good person.
HA That might be the most egotistical thing I have ever read. I'm sure many people find you interesting. But I can tell you a big part of higher thinking involves listening to other peoples ideas and modifying your own.
Funny how this thread has turned into a psychological assessment of spss
If you think i have a big ego wait until you meet a substantial amount of hot girls in your life that are completely undesrving of their egos. Its fun destroying their egos with information i had to put together myself. When you meet people with egos that big who prove themselves to be so intellectually inferior that they cant even fathom what you are talking about, it has a definite affect on your own ego
cool_nameWhere did he say ALL? He said most a big difference.You would think somebody wouldn't have to seriously misrepresent an argument to defeat it, unless it was sound and valid.
he said that you see a rich kid with 90 IQ and a poor kid with 120 IQ "almost never".
thats good enough for me and certainly what he thinks.
SpssChances are, since i did go to princeton, and was smarter than most of the kids there, that i have it figured out alot better than some lowlife like you.Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed an opinion statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[8] endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal
Feilination, like i have said, you are willing to lie about what makes the races different, and im not. That makes you the conceited fucking racist my friend. Go jack off in the mirror. You really have some complex about appearing innocent and attractive to yourelf. Im guessing thats the reason why you are the way you are.
What is it that you think would characterize someone who went there? Are you that pathetic that you have some vision in your head of the typical princeton grad as some super scholarly individual who walks on water? Guess what, we are normal kids... Just alot smarter than you. Faking intellectualism and scholarliness wont get you into princeton. Being smart will. Thats why someone like you would never have a chance in hell. But thanks for playing
52 scientists? 52? you cannot possibly be serious. THIS IS EXACTLY what is expected to happen in science. there will be outliers, by pure mathematical probability. if it were even remotely close to scientific consensus, it would have 52,000 or 520,000 scientists endorsing it.
when 50, 100 or 500 scientists say that creationism is true, it means literally nothing because hundreds of thousands scientists say that there is clear cut evidence against it.
you have no clue how science works. furthermore, you support racist, sexist and other pseudo-scientific work that CLEARLY has a political agenda, which is completely against the principles of science.
since i count myself as a scientist and researcher, i take these things personally.
but my main problem is that you are dehumanizing other racial groups and women. saying "they are dumber" is equal to "they are lesser human beings" because intelligence is what differentiate humans the most from animals. youre not stating "facts" (because there are countless articles on how the bell curve is wrong), youre simply looking for a fundament for your racist, sexist and elitist worldview. there cannot be a genetically caused IQ difference because genetic diversity is bigger among the same race than on average between racial groups. simple as that.
feihlination52 scientists? 52? you cannot possibly be serious. THIS IS EXACTLY what is expected to happen in science. there will be outliers, by pure mathematical probability. if it were even remotely close to scientific consensus, it would have 52,000 or 520,000 scientists endorsing it.when 50, 100 or 500 scientists say that creationism is true, it means literally nothing because hundreds of thousands scientists say that there is clear cut evidence against it.
you have no clue how science works. furthermore, you support racist, sexist and other pseudo-scientific work that CLEARLY has a political agenda, which is completely against the principles of science.
since i count myself as a scientist and researcher, i take these things personally.
but my main problem is that you are dehumanizing other racial groups and women. saying "they are dumber" is equal to "they are lesser human beings" because intelligence is what differentiate humans the most from animals. youre not stating "facts" (because there are countless articles on how the bell curve is wrong), youre simply looking for a fundament for your racist, sexist and elitist worldview. there cannot be a genetically caused IQ difference because genetic diversity is bigger among the same race than on average between racial groups. simple as that.
Feilnation, thanks for trying to muddy the waters on a cut and dry issue. Like i said, youre the father fucking austrian racist whose probably related to hitler.
The 52 sciemtists who signed the letter supporting the bell curve were lit of 130 who were asked to sign it. So almost half of a field of actual researchers (unlike yourself, who claims to be) supports the findings of the bell curve. So does a nobel prize winning economist.
Youre not going to win this feilnation. The people reading this forum are not dumb enough to believe you, when its obvious that you yourself do not believe what you are posting. The paper i posted is level headed and denounces racism. Its main point is that the evidence for group genetic differences is so strong that you WILL APPEAR as a complete excuse maker if you go against it.
Name calling and trying to appear more scholarly and intellectual than me doesnt work, because youre an average austrian (avg iq ~ 102 ) who thinks they are better than all americans (avg iq ~ 98) but i have a 140, which gives you a 1 out of 261 chance of being anywhere near me. So you its possible that you might not be far inferior to me but not probable. The fact that you think you can outsmart me, and the rest of ns, who is likely to be on avg smarter than you too, with authoritative language and name calling is fucking hilarious to me.
People have brains here feilnation, and shen they read the article i posted, they are going to make their own judgements on whether its reasonable. Most people will agree that it is reasonable, no matter how much you futilely try to refute it. meanwhile begging the mods to delete it because it makes your position (which you yourself dont even believe in) look embarrassingly weak.
I know youre not stupid enough to believe what you are saying is true feilination. What insults me and many others on ns, however, is that you think we are dumb enough to accept something from you as truth when you yourself dont even believe it.
Nobel prize winning economist James Heckman has praised the bell curve, as have many influential scholars and scientists. You pretend that anyone endorsing a genetic link to iq gaps is a racist, even though i posted an article (which you pretend you didnt read) that shows you can be a level headed non racist and still understand the truth.
You cant begin to solve a problem unless you understand it. In that respect, what you are doing ( covering up a truth that you personally actually believe in) is counter productive. For example, paying poor women at the bottom of the iq range to have more babies (welfare) only exasperates the problem.
People like you stand in the way of actual progress being made.
Im done with this for now. Feilnation, nobody believes your shit, because everyone read the article i posted, which is far more scholarly and scientifc than you could ever hope to be, and their reasonable, level headed conclusions are going to be unswayed by your furious fanatical denial of the truth. Now i know all you austrians revere your historic intellectuals, so in the spirit of sigmund freud, go fuck your own mother, just like he did haha
SpssFeilnation, thanks for trying to muddy the waters on a cut and dry issue. Like i said, youre the father fucking austrian racist whose probably related to hitler.
SpssNow i know all you austrians revere your historic intellectuals, so in the spirit of sigmund freud, go fuck your own mother, just like he did haha
SpssName calling and trying to appear more scholarly and intellectual than me doesnt work
the irony
SpssNobel prize winning economist James Heckman has praised the bell curve, as have many influential scholars and scientists. You pretend that anyone endorsing a genetic link to iq gaps is a racist, even though i posted an article (which you pretend you didnt read) that shows you can be a level headed non racist and still understand the truth.
he is an economist. he is not an expert in brain research, genetics, neurobiology or intelligence research.
cant blame him for preferring the book (although he criticizes two main assumptions, damn dude, its even on the wiki page), cant argue over (imo bad) taste.
so 130 were asked to endorse it and only 52 endorsed it? even if there were only 130 neurobiologist/genetics/intelligence experts on the planet, the book wouldnt even represent the majority opinion.
i seriously dont know how you can praise yourself being open minded and progressive while citing one or two sources all the time and neglecting the ongoing criticism of your line of thought.
SpssYoure not going to win this feilnation. The people reading this forum are not dumb enough to believe you, when its obvious that you yourself do not believe what you are posting.
SpssThe fact that you think you can outsmart me, and the rest of ns,
SpssPeople have brains here feilnation, and shen they read the article i posted, they are going to make their own judgements on whether its reasonable.
Spssnobody believes your shit, because everyone read the article i posted
damn dude, are you fucking delusional? youre arguing with different people for over 4 pages now and you think everybody is with you? you seriously have a problem with your ego.
SpssFor example, paying poor women at the bottom of the iq range to have more babies (welfare) only exasperates the problem.
yeah but they are too stupid to go to college and have a legit job. god forbids that they are black or another 2nd class human being. i always wonder how they manage their daily lives being that stupid. they should all get like care level II or so, or not, because we dont care about anything else than our fellow christian caucasians.
god dude i hate you for making me so cynical. i actually hope youre trolling now.
SpssFeilnation, just shut the fuck up. Your a fucking fanatic
are you failing to realize that every one of his posts is getting upvoted by everyone and every one of your posts is at -5? Obviously everyone thinks that you are the jackass here, and not him. You are honestly the exact reason I stayed as far away from the Ivy League as possible, I was at Yale for a total of 8 hours and wanted to punch half the people I had a conversation with, and I opted out of a early admit (not supposed to) because of it. One of the first questions I was asked by the other recruitment kids was "what do your parents do?", its that kind of pretentious attitude that makes kids like you unbearable to a large portion of society. It's the pretentious assholes like you that never give shit to society because they are too far stuck up their own ass to be able to look around and identify the actual problems in the world. You got a biology (sorry, pretty weak) degree from a ~top 15 program in the field. You aren't anything special, get it through your head. Had you graduated magna cum from Stanford it would have been a different story, but you didn't, there are literally thousands of students graduating every year that are as smart, if not smarter than you, so get it through your head.
shocker611are you failing to realize that every one of his posts is getting upvoted by everyone and every one of your posts is at -5? Obviously everyone thinks that you are the jackass here, and not him. You are honestly the exact reason I stayed as far away from the Ivy League as possible, I was at Yale for a total of 8 hours and wanted to punch half the people I had a conversation with, and I opted out of a early admit (not supposed to) because of it. One of the first questions I was asked by the other recruitment kids was "what do your parents do?", its that kind of pretentious attitude that makes kids like you unbearable to a large portion of society. It's the pretentious assholes like you that never give shit to society because they are too far stuck up their own ass to be able to look around and identify the actual problems in the world. You got a biology (sorry, pretty weak) degree from a ~top 15 program in the field. You aren't anything special, get it through your head. Had you graduated magna cum from Stanford it would have been a different story, but you didn't, there are literally thousands of students graduating every year that are as smart, if not smarter than you, so get it through your head.
Once you have graduated for a while you see how meaningless the material in class is, so let the ivy leaguers enjoy what they perceive to be better than us commoners. A degree is a piece of paper that employers require, and I don't regret doing my undergrad or my masters for one second. But the material in class has limited value other than trying to tell people I know my shit, which in all honesty, is just for feeding the ego to justify spending x amount of dollars and years dedicated to studying.
But what is of value is the experiences you look for outside of class, volunteering and research were and still are my most valued time because they are practical and have provided me a skill. Getting good grades and enlightening yourself in tutorial is enjoyable and has some value but has limited value beyond the classroom, and unless you can break down your thoughts to a level that is relevant to the general population, its meaningless.
Spss you're now officially my least favourite internet (troll?). Your (trolls?) are neither creative nor funny. You lack any clever retorts, retaliating with an embarrassing emotional flail that makes the whole of NS pity you. I came to this thread expecting the usual hilarious NS shitstorm, but it was ruined by the tantrum of the proverbial 12 year old. I ask, on behalf of the rest of the skiing community that you cease your post binge, and let balance return to NS.
Diracspss is probably just trolling. If he is not, then he should be able to easily solve a few junior-level physics problems for us to prove his "intelligence". I would find a couple, but I'm really busy right now like actually studying astrophysics and whatnot.
dirac from circumstantial evidence i doubt that you found hs physics anywhere near as easy as i found it. all i did in junior physics was make fun of the second smartest kid in the class (who had a 4.0) for how difficult a time he was having. i made the entire class chuckle almost nonstop for 50 min a day. i slept through ap physics and my teacher would sometimes bet my classmates money that if he woke me up i could answer whatever question he had. i always did. he also bet any of them 20 bucks that i would get a 5 on the ap exam, which i did, along with an 800 physics sat, easily. Like i said its very improbable that you never had to study or open a textbook or stay awake in your hs physics classes to get perfect on everything. And i already answered a question on why heavier skiers slide faster in a physics thread which you posted in. so maybe read thru threads better to save yourself from embarrassment.
shocker611are you failing to realize that every one of his posts is getting upvoted by everyone and every one of your posts is at -5? Obviously everyone thinks that you are the jackass here, and not him. You are honestly the exact reason I stayed as far away from the Ivy League as possible, I was at Yale for a total of 8 hours and wanted to punch half the people I had a conversation with, and I opted out of a early admit (not supposed to) because of it. One of the first questions I was asked by the other recruitment kids was "what do your parents do?", its that kind of pretentious attitude that makes kids like you unbearable to a large portion of society. It's the pretentious assholes like you that never give shit to society because they are too far stuck up their own ass to be able to look around and identify the actual problems in the world. You got a biology (sorry, pretty weak) degree from a ~top 15 program in the field. You aren't anything special, get it through your head. Had you graduated magna cum from Stanford it would have been a different story, but you didn't, there are literally thousands of students graduating every year that are as smart, if not smarter than you, so get it through your head.
i can see visiting yale to be frustrating to anyone who doesnt have what it takes to get in. And graduating top of your class doesnt matter. in the years since college i figured out shit that would blow the valedictorians mind like (the reason we dont have free will is because we are just another nonliving phase of chemistry). getting in to schools like harvard yale princeton mit is all that matters. thats the proof of your intelligence. not sitting in a library for 4 years, working your 93 indian iq into the ground to become valedictorian.
as for princetons eeb program, alot of the professors were rather famous in the field of bio, but you can talk all the shit you want i dont care.
also the fact that you get angry when people ask you what your parents do suggest that they are quite modest, both financially and intellectually, and unfortunately you have their genes so you must be similar as iq is 82 percent heritable.
when are you and others going to realize that arguing with me is self destructive behavior?
Download-My-AppsOnce you have graduated for a while you see how meaningless the material in class is, so let the ivy leaguers enjoy what they perceive to be better than us commoners. A degree is a piece of paper that employers require, and I don't regret doing my undergrad or my masters for one second. But the material in class has limited value other than trying to tell people I know my shit, which in all honesty, is just for feeding the ego to justify spending x amount of dollars and years dedicated to studying.But what is of value is the experiences you look for outside of class, volunteering and research were and still are my most valued time because they are practical and have provided me a skill. Getting good grades and enlightening yourself in tutorial is enjoyable and has some value but has limited value beyond the classroom, and unless you can break down your thoughts to a level that is relevant to the general population, its meaningless.
like i said, getting in to schools like hyp is the test. once you are in you get alot of freedom to learn what you want and soak up the atmosphere. if you get in you have proven you have what it takes to excell in any field. thats why admissions is such a gauntlet that they turn down thousands of hs valedictorians.
carltuszSpss you're now officially my least favourite internet (troll?). Your (trolls?) are neither creative nor funny. You lack any clever retorts, retaliating with an embarrassing emotional flail that makes the whole of NS pity you. I came to this thread expecting the usual hilarious NS shitstorm, but it was ruined by the tantrum of the proverbial 12 year old. I ask, on behalf of the rest of the skiing community that you cease your post binge, and let balance return to NS.
im not a troll, but the fact that you are incredulous of what i say suggests you are an extremely average person.
also, i appreciate all you people bumping this thread, as that will increase the number of ppl who read the paper i posted, making feilination look more and more like the lying racist fanatic he most certainly is.