Megachange : the world in 2050

[mistermack]

So what if the book came out in 1966? It was a through examination of standardized test scores among other factors over the prior seventy years. There haven't been any marked improvements in adjusted test scores from the 1960's to the current millennium.

Test scores. There you have the nub of why your argument is so incredibly stupid.
You set a test, and score it. That is a measure of HOW WELL YOU DO THAT KIND OF TEST.
That's what these dumb racial theories rely on. You jump from that, to "That's a measure of inherited intelligence".
That's where your own intelligence is failing you. You have to prove that link. You haven't proved it.

Prove that there is a test that measures inherent intelligence, not a ability to do tests, and you would then have a case.

The evidence against IQ tests, or others, actually measuring inherent intelligence, is huge.
Even that pathetic article you linked, about Watson, provides solid evidence.

It quotes sub-Saharan blacks as having IQ averages of 70. And American blacks as average 85.
That is catagoric proof that these scores to not reflect inherent intelligence.

But I'm sure, like religious fundies, proof is just an inconvenience to be ignored by you.
Whatever your OWN level of intelligence is, it's not going to get worn out by logical thought.

[Tyrannical]

So what if the book came out in 1966? It was a through examination of standardized test scores among other factors over the prior seventy years. There haven't been any marked improvements in adjusted test scores from the 1960's to the current millennium.

Test scores. There you have the nub of why your argument is so incredibly stupid.
You set a test, and score it. That is a measure of HOW WELL YOU DO THAT KIND OF TEST.
That's what these dumb racial theories rely on. You jump from that, to "That's a measure of inherited intelligence".
That's where your own intelligence is failing you. You have to prove that link. You haven't proved it.

Prove that there is a test that measures inherent intelligence, not a ability to do tests, and you would then have a case.

The evidence against IQ tests, or others, actually measuring inherent intelligence, is huge.
Even that pathetic article you linked, about Watson, provides solid evidence.

It quotes sub-Saharan blacks as having IQ averages of 70. And American blacks as average 85.
That is catagoric proof that these scores to not reflect inherent intelligence.

But I'm sure, like religious fundies, proof is just an inconvenience to be ignored by you.
Whatever your OWN level of intelligence is, it's not going to get worn out by logical thought.

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

[mistermack]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

That silly bluster proves that it's YOU that needs to research.
You couldn't answer the points that I put to you, so you try to pretend it's ME that needs to read up.
If you can't answer, it's either because you know that there ISN'T an answer.
Or, you just don't know.

Do a bit of reading, educate yourself, and you might be able to answer simple questions, and not just make yourself look silly.

[Tyrannical]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

That silly bluster proves that it's YOU that needs to research.
You couldn't answer the points that I put to you, so you try to pretend it's ME that needs to read up.
If you can't answer, it's either because you know that there ISN'T an answer.
Or, you just don't know.

Do a bit of reading, educate yourself, and you might be able to answer simple questions, and not just make yourself look silly.

Look mistermack, I know my shit. That is the reason it took them soooo long to ban me from both Dawkins and RatSkep.
You are out of your league, educate yourself and then come back. Lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of, but lack of resolve to learn is.

[mistermack]

Look mistermack, I know my shit. That is the reason it took them soooo long to ban me from both Dawkins and RatSkep.
You are out of your league, educate yourself and then come back. Lack of knowledge is nothing to be ashamed of, but lack of resolve to learn is.

If you know your shit, you ought to know by now that it IS shit.
If you can't answer what I asked, you know fuck-all.

I know enough to know that. I'm no genius, but I know enough to recognise bullshit, and you're full of it.

[Pappa]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Tyrannical, there's a huge warning at the top of that Wikipedia page about the factual accuracy of the contents.

[Tyrannical]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Tyrannical, there's a huge warning at the top of that Wikipedia page about the factual accuracy of the contents.

Yes, and he can feel free to read the article and read the various criticisms on it. His objections were addressed in the article, and it is clear he has little background information on the subject.

[Hermit]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

You've got to be kidding. There are ten cautionary notes sprinkled throughout the article, most of them voicing concerns about factual accuracy, neutrality and balance. What will you recommend for us to read next? Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve?

[Tyrannical]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

You've got to be kidding. There are ten cautionary notes sprinkled throughout the article, most of them voicing concerns about factual accuracy, neutrality and balance. What will you recommend for us to read next? Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve?

The fact that it is controversial you find shocking? If there is no controversy, what point is there in debate? The matter would be settled.

[Hermit]

GO DO SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH.

Your extreme ignorance of the subject matter makes it impossible to conduct any type of logical debate with you. At least educate yourself to the level of a Wikipedia article so you can further participate. And that may include clicking sub-links for things you are unfamiliar with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

You've got to be kidding. There are ten cautionary notes sprinkled throughout the article, most of them voicing concerns about factual accuracy, neutrality and balance. What will you recommend for us to read next? Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve?

The fact that it is controversial you find shocking?

No, without controversy we'd have no progress. Controversy, per se, is good, but for background research I prefer to read factually accurate, neutral and most importantly balanced material. The link you provided is akin to sending someone to Answers in Genesis for information on the theory of evolution.

[Tyrannical]

No, without controversy we'd have no progress. Controversy, per se, is good, but for background research I prefer to read factually accurate, neutral and most importantly balanced material. The link you provided is akin to sending someone to Answers in Genesis for information on the theory of evolution.

Have you been living in a cave since before Darwin? You feign knowledge, but if you had any background knowledge you'd realize the ridiculousness of your statement. Several Nobel Prize winners have touched this third rail. So stop pretending and go educate yourself, it's tiresome to me and should be embarrassing to you.

[Hermit]

No, without controversy we'd have no progress. Controversy, per se, is good, but for background research I prefer to read factually accurate, neutral and most importantly balanced material. The link you provided is akin to sending someone to Answers in Genesis for information on the theory of evolution.

Have you been living in a cave since before Darwin? You feign knowledge, but if you had any background knowledge you'd realize the ridiculousness of your statement. Several Nobel Prize winners have touched this third rail. So stop pretending and go educate yourself, it's tiresome to me and should be embarrassing to you.

Oh. A reply from Non sequitur Central.

[Pappa]

Jesus Christ, how can I make so many spelling mistakes.
I blame my phone.

First, I didn't claim that "Behavioral traits have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction." I was saying that specific traits for civilised socialisation have little to do with intelligence and human social interaction, certainly beyond the social traits we already had prior to civilisation.

These traits can be tested for, show a high degree of heritability, and there is documented evidence showing racial variations in averages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_p ... ity_traits

So, what's your point? Spit it out man.

The claim that traits for intelligence and social interaction were selected for a very long time ago:

Humans have been living in complex social groups (at the tribal level), generating art, making complex tools, etc. for a very long time. Idk if you've ever had a go at making flint tools, bows, spear-throwers, boomerangs, string, nets or anything else at that level of technology, but I can assure you they require a high degree of intelligence, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities. Yes, you can bash a piece of flint and break off a useful temporary cutting edge, but even the Neanderthal hand-axe requires a complex understanding of the materials and how they are likely to behave in response to your actions than most people nowadays are capable of picking up at all easily... and Neanderthal hand-axes are probably the simplest of the flint objects that can be specifically designated as a certain tool type (as opposed to bashed off flakes). Likewise, bowery, it's a difficult skill to master. You need an understanding of the material and how it is likely to behave beforehand, or you'll just make a bow that will break. Ever tried lighting a fire with pyrites? It's hard, you need to prepare all your materials in advance and know how they'll behave.

All these tasks require a level of intelligence, forethought and abstract thinking capabilities on a par with those of behaviorally modern humans.

And there are even more difficult skills that were mastered, such as shelter building, farming, metallurgy, astronomy, and animal domestication and these skills required a higher intelligence which was selected for.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushto ... theses.pdf (pg 636)

Evolutionary selection pressures
were different in the hot savanna, where Africans
lived, than in the cold northern regions Europeans
experienced, or the even colder Arctic regions
where East Asians evolved. Thus, the further north
the ancestral populations migrated out of Africa,
the more they encountered the cognitivelydemanding
problems of gathering and storing food,
gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children
successfully during prolonged winters. As
these populations evolved into present-day East
Asians and Europeans, the ecological pressures selected
for larger brains, slower rates of maturation,
and lower levels of sex hormone, and all the
other life-history characteristics.

Wait.... how are shelter building, farming, animal husbandry, metallurgy and building more difficult skills than hunter-gatherer tasks? Even astronomy only requires a greater quantity of passed on knowledge (as opposed to quality). Do you really think that a baby taken from a hunter-gatherer society and brought up in the bronze age would be incapable of learning to smelt ore? Genes for astronomy specific brain cells were never selected for, we just use the general intelligence we already have to do those things.

If Africans are as genetically disabled as you seem to be suggesting, how come they do such a good job at all the practical modern tasks that weren't selection pressures on them in prehistory?

Regarding selection for living in complex social groups occurring long ago.... I'll just say that the fact we've been doing it for so long is (for me) evidence enough that that selection was occurring for that whole time too.... and we've only been living in civilised societies for a fraction of the time that we weren't.

The claim that All human groups are extremely similar in those regards:

As far as I'm aware, all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory. We all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes (in Europe via the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age). Whatever the progression, we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers. Our social groups were probably broadly similar in general (though very different in specifics). I don't see much scope for great differences there, and there are only minor and superficial differences in different human groups now.

Nope, and even the biased anti-racist Jared Diamond noted that wasn't true in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

That what wasn't true? That "all human groups have broadly similar origins in recent prehistory"? That we "all went through a lengthy period living in hunter-gatherer societies before more recent changes"? That "we all faced pretty similar selection pressures as hunter-gatherers"? That "social groups were probably broadly similar in general"?

[Atheist-Lite]

Things that can't be known are open to wild guesswork supporting any position on the map. Much of human pre-history was moderated by intelligent 'other-beings' in my books since there is no way in hell the human animal managed this climb from the primordial soup itself.

[mistermack]

Trannyical seems to think that people only disagree because it's politically correct. Why I can't imagine.
I've had complete contempt for IQ test and the like, long before I'd heard of any of this racial crap.

I've got friends who I KNOW would score abysmally compared to me in tests, but can wee all over me when it comes to life skills. I used to buy and sell cars, and some of the very best traders could hardly even write, but could leave me standing in dealing.

Intelligence isn't just about puzzles etc.

When it comes to inheritance, the notion that REAL differences could evolve in such a short time-frame is ludicrous.
Intelligence levels are one of the LEAST variable features over not just species, but right back to family level.

It's hardly surprising because unlike colour or size, intelligence is the result of a phenomenal number genes and their combinations.

That's why you have animals like the cat family, which go from Siberian Tigers, all the way down to tiny wild cats just over a foot long. They can weigh 300 kilo, or one kilo.
They have tails, or no tails. Long fur, short fur. They are far more distantly related to each other than humans are.

But they all have practically the same level of intelligence.

And the same goes for virtually any family of animals on the planet.

And another perfectly obvious point that Tyrannical misses, is that living in HUGE communities does NOT require increased intelligence.
Just ask any beekeeper. Or anteater.
Look at termite cities, and what they build. And hardly a brain cell between them.