Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Al-Gebra on September 22, 2007, 09:37:02 PM
-
Scientists like Richard Lynn, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein believed that heredity (read race) played a greater role than environment in determining IQ . . .
apparently, some races were created more equal than others.
what do the denizens of the general board think.
try to refrain from using anecdotal evidence (for instance, my best friend is black and he is very well-spoken).
youandme, no one is interested in what you have to say, so don't bother. ;)
-
youandme, no one is interested in what you have to say, so don't bother. ;)
This topic could get pretty contentious. If he's still pretending to be some type of researcher, he may be the only comic relief this thread sees.
Meanwhile, even though this topic is clearly motivated by an agenda, I think it should be interesting. I actually attended college after TBC was published and we had a few interesting discussions about some of the theories it contained, most notably during a social diktyology course.
I've never actually bothered reading the whole thing, though. :(
-
There is evidence that shows IQ is 60% inherited, and 40% from environmental factors.
-
I think it's been proven beyond any reasonal doubt that IQ is mostly Environment.
Otherwise, the mean IQ score of some African countries wouldn't be in the 60's, while it is in the 110's in Japan, and close to 110 in Scandinavia.
The point is, in countries with high rates of illiteracy, the mean IQ score is low.
And reading is a learned ability.
Not something hereditary.
I've read a few books by authors claiming that certain ethnicities are superior. None of these books have succeeds in explaining how the brain, which we are using less than 10% of, wouldn't have the same capability in certain ethnic groups.
IMO, it's all just hogwash.
-
No I don't role with that Hedge.
I'm not saying on the scope of races, but I do believe that if both your parents are intelligent (regardless of race) then you will have a higher probability of high intelligence (regardless of up bringing).
-
I think it's been proven beyond any reasonal doubt that IQ is mostly Environment.
Otherwise, the mean IQ score of some African countries wouldn't be in the 60's, while it is in the 110's in Japan, and close to 110 in Scandinavia.
The point is, in countries with high rates of illiteracy, the mean IQ score is low.
And reading is a learned ability.
Not something hereditary.
I've read a few books by authors claiming that certain ethnicities are superior. None of these books have succeeds in explaining how the brain, which we are using less than 10% of, wouldn't have the same capability in certain ethnic groups.
IMO, it's all just hogwash.
Sociology texts pretty much take is as fact that whites are intellectually superior to blacks, due to the difference in IQ's, a 12 point difference even when socioeconomic factors are equal.
However, they don't take into account that blacks do poorly on formalised comparison testing, but do much better when they are told the exercise is not for formal comparison purposes.
-
No I don't role with that Hedge.
I'm not saying on the scope of races, but I do believe that if both your parents are intelligent (regardless of race) then you will have a higher probability of high intelligence (regardless of up bringing).
Yes, that I can agree on.
My post was mainly a comment on the extreme low mean IQ's of certain African countries.
L
-
Sociology texts pretty much take is as fact that whites are intellectually superior to blacks, due to the difference in IQ's, a 12 point difference even when socioeconomic factors are equal
This is not true. The average gap between blacks and whites is about 10 points and it's even smaller when adjusted for socioeconomic factors.
That was actually one of the biggest flaws with "The Bell Curve". IQs in general have been trending upwards due to improving socioeconomic conditions for all demographics. The racial disparity in IQs is actually shrinking, which also puts the lie to TBC's dismissal of environmental factors.
-
This is not true. The average gap between blacks and whites is about 10 points and it's even smaller when adjusted for socioeconomic factors.
That was actually one of the biggest flaws with "The Bell Curve". IQs in general have been trending upwards due to improving socioeconomic conditions for all demographics. The racial disparity in IQs is actually shrinking, which also puts the lie to TBC's dismissal of environmental factors.
I don't know which sources your using, but from mine the average gap is 15 and the adjusted gap is 12. (its not an internet source so I don't have it with me at the moment, in case you want to know what it is). It's true that the average IQ is increasing every year, but if it's from improving socioeconomic conditions, then why aren't the average grades in school increasing aswell? They have stayed the same.
-
I believe your source is a book called "The Bell Curve". Al-gebra referred to the guys who wrote that book in his opening post. The numbers they used (which match up with the numbers you used) were controversial because they contradicted several other prominent studies at the time. A lot of criticism surrounding that book was related to the fact that a lot of people believed they were misinterpreting data and ignoring anything that was in opposition to their theories.
Average grades in schools are increasing.
-
explaining how the brain, which we are using less than 10% of, wouldn't have the same capability in certain ethnic groups.
I think your post is solidly reasoned, but I just have to point out something about this statement because so many people repeat it. It's not true. We use our entire brains. That claim is largely a factual misinterpretation of the adaptive power of damaged brains that was perverted by the ad industry in the 20s and 30s and later co-opted by shyster psychics.
-
I believe your source is a book called "The Bell Curve". Al-gebra referred to the guys who wrote that book in his opening post. The numbers they used (which match up with the numbers you used) were controversial because they contradicted several other prominent studies at the time. A lot of criticism surrounding that book was related to the fact that a lot of people believed they were misinterpreting data and ignoring anything that was in opposition to their theories.
Average grades in schools are increasing.
My source is university readings for an exam, so it covers a number of studies, and it does also point of the flaws in "the bell curve".
-
both
monster genius post ;D
-
I think it's been proven beyond any reasonal doubt that IQ is mostly Environment.
Otherwise, the mean IQ score of some African countries wouldn't be in the 60's, while it is in the 110's in Japan, and close to 110 in Scandinavia.
well, in addition to there being environmental differences b/w sub-saharan africa and scandinavia, there are also racial differences.
-
I also think both factors influence IQ
-
well, in addition to there being environmental differences b/w sub-saharan africa and scandinavia, there are also racial differences.
It's not like we up here in Scandinavia (mean IQ 104) are 90% smarter than people in Equatorial Guinea (mean IQ 59).
BTW, the correct terminology isn't racial. It's ethnological.
-
It's not like we up here in Scandinavia (mean IQ 104) are 90% smarter than people in Equatorial Guinea (mean IQ 59).
BTW, the correct terminology isn't racial. It's ethnological.
you're driving at ethnological differences, I'm not. Ethnological variation is certainly relevant . . . scandinavian education, for instance, prepares one for IQ-type tests much better than education in the sudan.
However, my focus is on studies that indicate that there is a difference based purely on "racial" features (category used by researchers like Weinberg & Scarr) . . .
-
It's both environmental and genetics.
Why haven't certain civilizations contributed anything useful? A lot of things have come from Greece, North Africa, Europe, India, China and even the polynesians. The west is easily on top these days and I don't think as a whole some people will be able to catch whitey; genes and environment being the factors.
What's come out of western africa? :-\ Why are some people there like 2,000 years behind? :-\
It ain't poltically correct, but it's the truth.
IMO, IQ is hard to measure for developing nations.. I mean someone who's not fed can't develop a fucking brain to do algebra and learn to read and write.
(In the time of the British Raj) Wasn't there some indian guy who got ahold of a british algebra book, but was totally uneducated in the laws of math prior, but wrote like complex equations and stuff after reading the book? This was back during the british raj, and I can't recall his name.. He was supposedly poor and had no educational background, yet he learned complex math on his own. He was mentioned in the movie Good Will Hunting, I think. Anyone hear of him? I'm mentioning him because that shows how genes can overcome certain enviornmental factors.
-
It's both environmental and genetics.
that's what i said ;D
-
It's both environmental and genetics.
Why haven't certain civilizations contributed anything useful? A lot of things have come from Greece, North Africa, Europe, India, China and even the polynesians. The west is easily on top these days and I don't think as a whole some people will be able to catch whitey; genes and environment being the factors.
What's come out of western africa? :-\ Why are some people there like 2,000 years behind? :-\
It ain't poltically correct, but it's the truth.
IMO, IQ is hard to measure for developing nations.. I mean someone who's not fed can't develop a fucking brain to do algebra and learn to read and write.
(In the time of the British Raj) Wasn't there some indian guy who got ahold of a british algebra book, but was totally uneducated in the laws of math prior, but wrote like complex equations and stuff after reading the book? This was back during the british raj, and I can't recall his name.. He was supposedly poor and had no educational background, yet he learned complex math on his own. He was mentioned in the movie Good Will Hunting, I think. Anyone hear of him? I'm mentioning him because that shows how genes can overcome certain enviornmental factors.
ramanujan . . .
-
I think it's been proven beyond any reasonal doubt that IQ is mostly Environment.
Otherwise, the mean IQ score of some African countries wouldn't be in the 60's, while it is in the 110's in Japan, and close to 110 in Scandinavia.
Utterly false. The reason why the mean I.Q in Japan is 105 while only 75 in Africa is due to environment and genetics. Blacks in the U.S, with good nutrition and access to good schools, still score an average of 85. Higher than they do in Africa, but lower than Caucasians and East Asians. Poor East Asian children, without access to good schools, still score higher than typical White children.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
However, my focus is on studies that indicate that there is a difference based purely on "racial" features (category used by researchers like Weinberg & Scarr) . . .
I wanted to post something about these researchers, but I couldn't remember their names. They figured prominently in "TBC". Sloppy interpretation of their data shows just how dangerous statistics can be in the wrong hands.
For anyone who isn't familiar with them, they did a study on adopted kids of black,white and mixed backgrounds in the 70s and a followup in the 80s. You can check it out on Wikipedia. The basic results are that the blacker a kid is, the lower its iq is likely to be. The researchers were actually trying to disprove the theories of a guy who had claimed that headstart funding should be cut because it was wasted on blacks due to genetic factors.
There was, however, a flaw in the study's control. More of the mixed and black children had been in the adoption system longer. There was a significant difference in IQ between black children based on how early they'd been adopted.
When there was an adjustment made for kids who had all been placed early in life, the iq differences based on race were statistically negligible.
-
I wanted to post something about these researchers, but I couldn't remember their names. They figured prominently in "TBC". Sloppy interpretation of their data shows just how dangerous statistics can be in the wrong hands.
For anyone who isn't familiar with them, they did a study on adopted kids of black,white and mixed backgrounds in the 70s and a followup in the 80s. You can check it out on Wikipedia. The basic results are that the blacker a kid is, the lower its iq is likely to be. The researchers were actually trying to disprove the theories of a guy who had claimed that headstart funding should be cut because it was wasted on blacks due to genetic factors.
There was, however, a flaw in the study's control. More of the mixed and black children had been in the adoption system longer. There was a significant difference in IQ between black children based on how early they'd been adopted.
When there was an adjustment made for kids who had all been placed early in life, the iq differences based on race were statistically negligible.
yeah, i remember there was some controversy over their study . . . do you have the source handy? (not wikipedia, please, people like adonis are editors there).
-
Utterly false. The reason why the mean I.Q in Japan is 105 while only 75 in Africa is due to environment and genetics. Blacks in the U.S, with good nutrition and access to good schools, still score an average of 85. Higher than they do in Africa, but lower than Caucasians and East Asians. Poor East Asian children, without access to good schools, still score higher than typical White children.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Epic truth.
To outsiders of the US, it may seem as though black people are screwed.. But anyone living here and with a tint of common sense knows the truth. Black people in general have better access to many things over asian immigrants, yet still score lower, and these low scores have a correlation to negatives(crime rate being an example). Don't listen to Jamal when he claims poverty while wearing $200 sneakers. And fuck anyone who doesn't agree.
-
Could anyone explain to me how some african civilizations today could be lesser developed than civilizations over 2,000 years ago?
The Romans and Greeks were doing their thing, so were the orients.. Indians created the numerical system and were also doing their thing. Near Easterners were doing their thing, and etc.. It's tedious to name everything.
How come the only decent part of africa(north) just happens to be the least black?
hahahahaha
-
Could anyone explain to me how some african civilizations today could be lesser developed than civilizations over 2,000 years ago?
The Romans and Greeks were doing their thing, so were the orients.. Indians created the numerical system and were also doing their thing. Near Easterners were doing their thing, and etc.. It's tedious to name everything.
How come the only decent part of africa(north) just happens to be the least black?
hahahahaha
And you're proving this has all to do with IQ exactly how? ???
-
The genetic part, Haider.
That's what I'm trying to point out, not prove. I don't have that ambition.
-
we're quickly straying into the realm of anecdotal evidence now .
-
we're quickly straying into the realm of anecdotal evidence now .
Then cough up the objective observations, friend. Cite references and all while you are it too.
Subjective observations often tend to be true, when of course a general populus is in question. This cannot be said for an individual.
-
I'm waiting for al doggity to produce the Weinberg and Scarr study . . . and their qualification of it.
-
The genetic part, Haider.
That's what I'm trying to point out, not prove. I don't have that ambition.
No shit? ???
Pointing out things is ok, but you are working under the assumption that there is a direct correlation between what you are pointing out and the subject at hand. I'm only challenging that assumption in the absence of evidence.
I think discussions about subject like this without the correct guidance can be extremely dangerous. Not something that should be up for public discussion, only real scientific minds.
-
Subjective observations often tend to be true, when of course a general populus is in question.
No.
-
No shit? ???
Pointing out things is ok, but you are working under the assumption that there is a direct correlation between what you are pointing out and the subject at hand. I'm only challenging that assumption in the absence of evidence.
I think discussions about subject like this without the correct guidance can be extremely dangerous. Not something that should be up for public discussion, only real scientific minds.
The evidence is masked by political correctness, you fool. Use common sense for once. And I think your pov is skewed by your own background.. I mean pakis aren't exactly thought of as teddy bears. You are destroying england and stand the same to do here, unless we do SOMETHING.
Look at the stats for blacks. If you ignore those, then your opnions are invalid by default.
No.
When generalizing an entire group, then OF COURSE YES. How could you say no? Not talking about individuals here.
I think I know your bias, but am too wasted to go about challenging it.. Leave it tonight, but I am surprised that you'd bust out "anecdotal" on a simple topic on a bbing forum.. Trying to sound important or something along those lines, Al?
-
The evidence is masked by political correctness, you fool. Use common sense for once. And I think your pov is skewed by your own background.. I mean pakis aren't exactly thought of as teddy bears. You are destroying england and stand the same to do here, unless we do SOMETHING.
Look at the stats for blacks. If you ignore those, then your opnions are invalid by default.
When generalizing an entire group, then OF COURSE YES. How could you say no? Not talking about individuals here.
I think I know your bias, but am too wasted to go about challenging it.. Leave it tonight, but I am surprised that you'd bust out "anecdotal" on a simple topic on a bbing forum.. Trying to sound important or something along those lines, Al?
i didn't burst out w anything, it's in my first post in this thread.
and what is my bias?
-
The evidence is masked by political correctness, you fool. Use common sense for once. And I think your pov is skewed by your own background.. I mean pakis aren't exactly thought of as teddy bears. You are destroying england and stand the same to do here, unless we do SOMETHING.
wow, just wow dude, this is a new low for you. Very disappointing that you would even bring my "background" into the argument. It has no relevance, and as such proves your naivete about the issue, or your biases. Grow up dude.
-
Not something that should be up for public discussion, only real scientific minds.
so we're all sheep?
-
I'm waiting for al doggity to produce the Weinberg and Scarr study . . . and their qualification of it.
Why does it seem like I'm the only one who has to provide documentation when I debate a point on these boards? ;)
It's sort of difficult to get good analysis of research online, but here is something from a book about some of the flaws in "TBC". The stuff relevant to the Scarr/Weinberg study starts on page 334.(Don't worry, you don't have to scroll through 333 pages, it's a sample preview on google books.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=UVLaKci3uOIC&pg=PA333&dq=scarr+weinberg+corrections+interpretations&sig=Peab86xsgBMAFeyiN3smb56hJwM#PPA331,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=UVLaKci3uOIC&pg=PA333&dq=scarr+weinberg+corrections+interpretations&sig=Peab86xsgBMAFeyiN3smb56hJwM#PPA331,M1)
I think the findings as they're presented here are open to interpretation up to a point. I've actually read much more emphatic analysis, though. I'm a demo researcher/media buyer by profession and one of the major tools I use for work is a media database called Lexis Nexis. At a previous job, my subscription covered access to a lot of medical journals/medical opinion pieces (which this would fall under) and this is the second time in the last few weeks that I could have used it around here.
-
Everyone in this thread should read Vanhanen's IQ and the Wealth of Nations.
Very controversial book.
-
wow, just wow dude, this is a new low for you. Very disappointing that you would even bring my "background" into the argument. It has no relevance, and as such proves your naivete about the issue, or your biases. Grow up dude.
Well your position as a minority adds to bias (of course I doubt you have the honour to admit this), and you certainly can't refute Pakis are destroying England.
Good day to you sir.
-
Scientists like Richard Lynn, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein believed that heredity (read race) played a greater role than environment in determining IQ . . .
apparently, some races were created more equal than others.
what do the denizens of the general board think.
try to refrain from using anecdotal evidence (for instance, my best friend is black and he is very well-spoken).
youandme, no one is interested in what you have to say, so don't bother. ;)
its a little bit of both..you can vastly improve your IQ within your genetic parameters..
however some people are hapless like Nord here..i'm been making Jungian jokes at him for months and the poor bastard hasn't caught on..
Note to Nord...when i said "that be a juigian slip" i mean..."your environment didn't make you an idiot...you were born that way!" ;)
-
its a little bit of both..you can vastly improve your IQ within your genetic parameters..
however some people are hapless like Nord here..i'm been making Jungian jokes at him for months and the poor bastard hasn't caught on..
Note to Nord...when i said "that be a juigian slip" i mean..."your environment didn't make you an idiot...you were born that way!" ;)
Wow, I'm really happy someone of your intelligence could input in this thread! Your posts are like a blast of fresh air! You cut thru the theories and such and give everyone a definitive answer! Fucking awesomeness personifide!
Oh these "juigian slip"'s you mention, could you maybe show me some of your posts where you're supposed to have done them?
Good day to you sir!
-
Oh these "juigian slip"'s you mention, could you maybe show me some of your posts where you're supposed to have done them?
you really think you matter that much dontcha dumbie :-\
-
you really think you matter that much dontcha dumbie :-\
Translation:
انا احد كريه الراءحه كاري المسلم الذي يحب الاكل تأخذ الحصان الى القضيب حتى بلدي الشرجن
Translated to English:
Fuck, I've been caught talking out of my arse again! Now let's type the regular self centered type responce I'm renowned for!
-
Translation:
انا احد كريه الراءحه كاري المسلم الذي يحب الاكل تأخذ الحصان الى القضيب حتى بلدي الشرجن
Translated to English:
Fuck, I've been caught talking out of my arse again! Now let's type the regular self centered type responce I'm renowned for!
Default low IQ attack that Nord ALWAYS falls back on " call toxic an arab " :-\
PS i dont understand arabic..make it in urdu next time..
-
Default low IQ attack that Nord ALWAYS falls back on " call toxic an arab " :-\
PS i dont understand arabic..make it in urdu next time..
Again, where did I call you and arab? When for that matter have I EVER called you an arab? ???
Arabic just so happens to be the language of the moslems.
You're digging a deep hole!
PS use the Google Translator (I would have assumed someone of your vast unmeasureable intelligence would have figure that part out?)
-
PS use the Google Translator (I would have assumed someone of your vast unmeasureable intelligence would have figure that part out?)
ya think i'd make that effort? :-\
you bleat an awefull lot
-
ya think i'd make that effort? :-\
you bleat an awefull lot
Someone as important as you wouldn't go to that effort I'm sure! However, don't people in your esteemed positions have slaves to carry out such activities?
BTW, are you aware of how stupid you are and how much of a fucking tool you are?
Probably not... I bid you goodday.
-
Well your position as a minority adds to bias (of course I doubt you have the honour to admit this), and you certainly can't refute Pakis are destroying England.
Good day to you sir.
And you have admitted to your outrageous biases exactly when? Thought so.. ;) It is useless to argue with someone who accuses anotehr of a bias, but at the same time forgets his own. He also fails to realise that it doesnt work as an argument (i.e. an adhominem fallacy), i.e. it is a copout rather than a form of argumentation.
However, I have admitted in the past that my background influences my opinions atleast in some way, as it affects anybody (you seem to overlook this fact about yourself). This I haven't seen coming from you, which stands to expose your own hypocrisy, lack of honor, cowardice, or whichever way you have put it many times when trying to attack me.
I've tried being polite with you in the past, and working with you patiently but it doesn't work... simply because you are blinded by your bias- not that I would use it as a real argument against you, but then it gets tiresome and I'm forced to tell you that you are not trying to see the picture.
Fuck you too sir.
-
Q: Was, or was not, my reponce a reponce to your ad hominem attack on Camel?
You never argued the points that Camel brought up, rather you went all ad hominem on his arse.
How's the starving yourself for the devil going?
-
I also think both factors influence IQ
Of course they do. The question is to what degree of influence.
I side on the notion that heredity is the determining factor.
If you're born dumb, then you can't fix stupid! (quoted by comedian Ron White)
-
Skeels and Dye:
1930's, common sense back then was considered you were born with it or not.
They took 13 babies from an orphanage. Back then orphanages basically just cared for the physical needs of the babies, stimulation and personal contact was very limited. The took 13 babies that were considered unadaptable because they were obviously mentally retarded and placed them in an institution for the mentally retarded. The women their interacted with the babies and in a sense adopted them. The ages of the caregivers ranged from 18-50, with mental ages of 5-12. Each child grew attached to a particular person in the 19 months they were there. 12 infants were left as a "control" at the orphanage, they were also retarded but they were of higher intelligence. The rec'd the "usual" orphanage care.
2-1/2 years later they tested the children's intelligence. The children placed with the retarded women gained an average of 28 IQ points, the control group LOST 30 points.
a followup study done 21 years later: the control group averaged less than a 3rd grade education. 4 still were institutionalized, the rest had low level jobs. Only 2 had married. The 13 in the experimental group had a 12 year level of education average, 5 had completed 1 or more years of college, 1 had went to graduate school. 11 had married, and all 13 were self supporting or homemakers.
Environment can certainly play a role in intelligence.
-
Q: Was, or was not, my reponce a reponce to your ad hominem attack on Camel?
You never argued the points that Camel brought up, rather you went all ad hominem on his arse.
How's the starving yourself for the devil going?
go look up the definition of ad hominem before you start ranting about it, it will serve you good. My original contention was that it was an ad hominem fallacy on HIS part, I don't believe he brought up any points at all for me to argue against.
Maybe you guys should partake in some self-examination before you come over here and attack/argue with other people. Conquer your own biases and prejudices before you point them out for others (my prejudices being irrelevant in my case in this instance).
Ramadan is ok, I could certainly be doing better things than defending myself against two pagans ;) Thanks for asking.
-
Skeels and Dye:
1930's, common sense back then was considered you were born with it or not.
They took 13 babies from an orphanage. Back then orphanages basically just cared for the physical needs of the babies, stimulation and personal contact was very limited. The took 13 babies that were considered unadaptable because they were obviously mentally retarded and placed them in an institution for the mentally retarded. The women their interacted with the babies and in a sense adopted them. The ages of the caregivers ranged from 18-50, with mental ages of 5-12. Each child grew attached to a particular person in the 19 months they were there. 12 infants were left as a "control" at the orphanage, they were also retarded but they were of higher intelligence. The rec'd the "usual" orphanage care.
2-1/2 years later they tested the children's intelligence. The children placed with the retarded women gained an average of 28 IQ points, the control group LOST 30 points.
a followup study done 21 years later: the control group averaged less than a 3rd grade education. 4 still were institutionalized, the rest had low level jobs. Only 2 had married. The 13 in the experimental group had a 12 year level of education average, 5 had completed 1 or more years of college, 1 had went to graduate school. 11 had married, and all 13 were self supporting or homemakers.
Environment can certainly play a role in intelligence.
This has to do with the "critical age" for language/learning I believe. If a child lacks stimulation and interaction with people their language skills will not fully develop once they pass a certain age. This can be seen with studies with monkeys, ones that were isolated from birth to a certain age could not assimilate properly back into the community. Also, there was a girl a while back who's father was crazy and he chained her in a basement till she was 13, then authorities found out and got her out. Since she had passed the critical age for language/learning she could never fully master language skills.
-
Scientists like Richard Lynn, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein believed that heredity (read race) played a greater role than environment in determining IQ . . .
apparently, some races were created more equal than others.
what do the denizens of the general board think.
try to refrain from using anecdotal evidence (for instance, my best friend is black and he is very well-spoken).
youandme, no one is interested in what you have to say, so don't bother. ;)
Lots depends on what is "Intelligent".
There are PPl not very educated that are brilliant.
Surviving much better than average with what limited resources bestowed on you is true intelligence in my book.
Ive known many intellectuals that wouldn't make it out alive of west valley SLC on any given Friday at midnight.
It all depends on what is relevant, and also ability to addapt to what is truly relavant.
They can stick those intell tests straight up their ass.
I know my share of quite wealthy dummies.
Would you rather be highly intelligent or secure & satisfied w/ your life?
Being OVERducated is not corelated w/ greater wealth or satisfaction.
A PHD is a poor investment from a monetary cost:reward basis.
-
wow, just wow dude, this is a new low for you. Very disappointing that you would even bring my "background" into the argument. It has no relevance, and as such proves your naivete about the issue, or your biases. Grow up dude.
What of the stats for blacks? Explain with citation and references, you fucking pundu fuck.
And don't come back with "bengalis are small," retorts as I've shown that I am the alpha sand n egro of this forum far and away. Natural to boot.
-
What of the stats for blacks? Explain with citation and references, you fucking pundu fuck.
And don't come back with "bengalis are small," retorts as I've shown that I am the alpha sand n egro of this forum far and away. Natural to boot.
FISHMONGER MELTDOWN!!!!
hahaha, calm down nuggah I'm not toxy, and all paki's are not created equal. Calm down the hostility and the drunkenness the bit, then we can talk.
-
go look up the definition of ad hominem before you start ranting about it, it will serve you good. My original contention was that it was an ad hominem fallacy on HIS part, I don't believe he brought up any points at all for me to argue against.
Maybe you guys should partake in some self-examination before you come over here and attack/argue with other people. Conquer your own biases and prejudices before you point them out for others (my prejudices being irrelevant in my case in this instance).
Ramadan is ok, I could certainly be doing better things than defending myself against two pagans ;) Thanks for asking.
I can't see his post as being ad hominem, especially in light of your replies.
Pagans? ::)
Haha, ok moon god.
-
I can't see his post as being ad hominem, especially in light of your replies.
Pagans? ::)
Haha, ok moon god.
have you noticed that nordic considers himself to be right and everyone else on all topics to be wrong..
:-\
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=GRE+tunneling
here nordie dumbie since i know for a fact you dont know what a GRE tunnel is or how to create one here is a little help...maybe i should del your account..how abouts i change yer name to nordicbitch? ;D i doubt ron would take kindly to that but man that be fun!
-
have you noticed that nordic considers himself to be right and everyone else on all topics to be wrong..
:-\
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=GRE+tunneling
here nordie dumbie since i know for a fact you dont know what a GRE tunnel is or how to create one here is a little help...maybe i should del your account..how abouts i change yer name to nordicbitch? ;D i doubt ron would take kindly to that but man that be fun!
Told u GRE wouldn't provide you with access to the server for one.
Not only that, let's say you gain root access or and high priveledge account, then you have to access the MySQL database, which in itself is password protected.
YOU = TOOL OF GETBIG
-
FISHMONGER MELTDOWN!!!!
hahaha, calm down nuggah I'm not toxy, and all paki's are not created equal. Calm down the hostility and the drunkenness the bit, then we can talk.
Still waiting for u to get undrunk, mochli.
-
Told u GRE wouldn't provide you with access to the server for one.
Not only that, let's say you gain root access or and high priveledge account, then you have to access the MySQL database, which in itself is password protected.
YOU = TOOL OF GETBIG
done it just cause yuou dont know how..dont mean i dont ;)
-
done it just cause yuou dont know how..dont mean i dont ;)
(http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/tool%20leash%203%20small.jpg)
-
(http://samplerewards.com/images/Company00209/editor/tool%20leash%203%20small.jpg)
ooo pooh oo paah.swing n a miss!
-
Swing and miss eh?
Biggest tool on getbig.
Delete my account. Oh shit, you can't!
-
Swing and miss eh?
Biggest tool on getbig.
Delete my account. Oh shit, you can't!
;D
-
I.Q is paramount for understanding complex activities and concepts. However, it can also make you miserable. There is some consistent statistical evidence that I.Q correlates with dystemia. It has been suggested that genes for very high I.Q(160+) might be pleiotropic with depression, by inducing certain neurochemical patterns.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I.Q is paramount for understanding complex activities and concepts. However, it can also make you miserable. There is some consistent statistical evidence that I.Q correlates with dystemia. It has been suggested that genes for very high I.Q(160+) might be pleiotropic with depression, by inducing certain neurochemical patterns.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
On the opposite end of the spectrum you have people who are inclined to think Dorian > Ronnie. Not sure if it has a genetic basis or not, but statistically consistent evidence shows this to be true.
For example, you might wanna check out this thread:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0)