UnderGround Forums
 

AcademicGround >> Smartest European Countries


3/29/06 11:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Mar-06 11:52 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1797
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105519,00.html So much for those Polish jokes! Poland was #3!
3/29/06 11:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Revolver of Reason
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31488
all of my ancestors are from 100 and up. :)
3/30/06 4:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Mar-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12973
so muchfor all the jokes about sweden!
3/31/06 5:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Logic Rules
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Mar-06
Member Since: 08/01/2005
Posts: 7955
The avg American IQ is 98
4/1/06 10:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12978
on a more serious note, that "researcher" is pretty known for his bad science that mostly seems to be made to inspire nazis..
4/3/06 11:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1845
I think most of the attacks on Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Phillippe Rushton, and others are because people don't like their politics. Not because anyone can find real problems with their methodology. Stephen Jay Gould--now THERE was an academic rubbish-peddler.
4/3/06 4:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Andrew Yao
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3315
That brings an instant question to mind: Do you(Buddhadev) more or less agree with the former people's politics, and disagree with Gould's?
4/3/06 5:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Apr-06 05:55 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1851
Fair enough. You probably already have an inkling of which way my politics lean. :-) However, many people who blast Gould's responsibility and academic ethics ARE people who agree with him politically (of course, they aren't nearly as loud as those who don't). There are many people in his field who were embarrassed by the cult of personality he created around himself when he was alive (the Simpsons appearrance, etc.). What irks me is when people blast scientists like Jensen, Herrnstein, Lynn, etc. with crap like, "Oh, this is how Nazis justified killing 'inferior races.'" Well, that's entirely ancillary to whether or not it's RIGHT. Truth shouldn't be avoided just because it offends the Southern Poverty Law Center. Gould isn't wrong because he's an egalitarian communist hippie; those things are entirely incidental to him being wrong. I can't really get into a long-term discussion about Gould. I'd simply direct the curious here. addendum: I would be entirely open to reading a non-political critique of Lynn's work.
4/4/06 6:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12996
A Neo-eugenics page..? This doesn´t get more credible I´m afraid.
4/4/06 10:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1859
See again, you're dismissing it for reasons of ideology. Even if the page were published by the Coprophagous Satanist's Baby Seal Clubbing Society, it still wouldn't affect the substance of the arguments. Just because something is politically incorrect doesn't mean it's factually incorrect. And actually that page, if you read it, mostly cites other books, journals, and articles.
4/4/06 5:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12999
I know that, you´re right. and your argument could also be applied on AIG, but I´m still not gonna waste my time with it, until it comes from a more credible source. it´s not 100% foolproof of course, but a shady source is a good hint to if something is worth taking serious IME. IIRC, Lynn et al. has also recieved heavy non-ideologic methodological critique as well. I´m sure we dig up something with google on that.
4/6/06 6:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SILK
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 9561
I was born in Poland to Polish parents. I'm a genius!!! :-D Thanks for that Buddhadev. Interesting read.
4/7/06 2:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1881
"but a shady source is a good hint to if something is worth taking serious IME" Again, the only reason that you're calling it "shady" is because you find it politically objectionable. You seem to have a stern belief in cognitive equality among the world's races and cultures and you consider anything that argues with this "shady," ipso facto. The NeoEugenics page actually mostly just reprints material pbulished in other mediums. So even if its "shadiness" were conceded, you couldn't use that to dismiss all the other sources it sites. And regarding Gould,his highest profile critic has been Richard Dawkins--who's not eactly a political right-winger.
4/7/06 11:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Apr-06 12:05 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13022

"Again, the only reason that you're calling it "shady" is because you find it politically objectionable.  "

 not really, I call it shady because it stands on questionable scientific grounds.

 

"You seem to have a stern belief in cognitive equality among the world's races and cultures and you consider anything that argues with this "shady," ipso facto."

I realize that you can group people into arbitrary groups and they may have varying cognitive abilities. But I also know that there is really no such thing as different "human races"from a scientific POV. there are basically no good defining criteria, that aren´t extremely blurry on "the edges". and I also know that the people that insist on talking about different human races, usually have a politcal agenda.

4/8/06 7:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13026

"And regarding Gould,his highest profile critic has been Richard Dawkins--who's not eactly a political right-winger."

they were debating some specific area in the evolutionary theory, which had no impact on Goulds slaughter of the "Bell Curve" in his book "the mismeasue of man".

4/8/06 11:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Apr-06 08:48 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1893
LOL! "The Mismeasure of Man" was more a political polemic than a "slaughter." Most of what Gould did was just blast straw men: "See people who studued intelligence in the 19th century thought and concluded stupid things like x. Therefore, we can dismiss the conclusions of those who study intelligence today!" Sure the concept of race is fuzzy, but speciation is fuzzy too. There have been experiments with plants wherein plant "B" can pollinate plant "A" and "C", but "A" and "C" can't pollinate each other. All this proves is that the real world is a little blurrier than our attempts to define it. Human races are more or less analagous to dog breeds--genetically distinct groups that can still interbreed. Even though there's no single "breed gene," it doesn't mean that dog breeds are a "social construct" like the post-modernist would want to believe (when they point out that there isn't a specific "race gene"). And no one can doubt that there are differences in both intelligence and temperament among the dog breeds. I mean, what would make you more nervous: the rapid approach of a pit bull or a golden retriever? Which one more likely is coming to play with you rather than gnaw the flesh off your bones? People who doggedly blast the Rusthons, Lynns, Herrnsteins, Wilsons, and Jensens of the world are usually doing so because they have an emotional PROBLEM with those people being right. I would have no problem with cognitive, behavioral, or kinesthetic racial equality. I agree that it's a more beautiful theory of our world, but being more beautiful doesn't make it true. As one final thought, look at racial proclivity for certain medical ailments. Blacks for example, have a much higher incidence of conditions like pancreatis and sickle-cell anemia. Another example: Tay-Sachs disease is virtually non-existant outside of Ashkenazi Jews. Lactose intolerance is far more rare among people with some degree of Caucasian ancestry in their blood, whereas it's very common among blacks and east Asians. These all real medical facts, and certainly not "social constructs."
4/10/06 3:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Apr-06 03:26 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13031

For a pretty devestating critique of "the Bell curve", take a look here: http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/sciam1.htm

 

4/10/06 5:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Apr-06 05:13 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1903
Charles Murray already picked that supposedly "devastating" critique apart in an article froma 1995 issue of Commentary magazine. Unfortunately, Commentary charges money for access to their old articles on their website, so I can't link to it. Kamin is pretty much an acolyte in Gould's cult of racial cognitive egalitarianism. Kamin is another example of someone whose primary motivation is ideological. In a 1974 book he wrote, he makes the silly claim that IQ testing resulted in the 1924 immigration shutoff that denied Europe's Jews entry into America (which arguably would have saved them from the Holocaust). Basically, like most irresponsible leftwing demagogues, he's trying to draw a connection between Nazism and any attempt at a nuanced look at race and IQ. Obviously when the stakes are as high as Kamin believes them to be, it isn't hard to see him choosing to be disingenuous to serve what he would consider a "greater good." Here are some pretty well-researched and referenced critiques of Gould's supposed "slaughter" by Jensen and Rushton: Jensen: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/jensen-gould-fossils Rushton: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_gould_paid.html Again, it's not the people on my side of the debate who have a problem with the political implications of being wrong about this.
4/10/06 5:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13032

"Kamin is another example of someone whose primary motivation is ideological. "

 can you back that up in a credible way, or are you just sharing your opinion?

4/10/06 6:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1904
"can you back that up in a credible way, or are you just sharing your opinion?" Um, yeah, just read the rest of my paragraph that you pulled that quote from! LOL! That 1974 book of Kamin's is entitled The Science and Politics of IQ and in it he basically blames early IQ research for immigration restriction and thus preventing Europe's Jewish people from escaping the Holocaust. Whether or not you are sympathetic to this argument it IS a political/ideological argument: it points out Kamin's problem with (what he saw as) the POLITICAL implications of IQ research. You can read that book of his, published 20 years before he wrote that SCIAM article, and find him saying this in his own words if you don't believe me. Again, Kamin clearly has a problem with what it would mean for the political discourse on race if he were wrong.
4/10/06 6:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13033
well, that Kamin doesn´t agree with the ideological implications, doesn´t in any way remove the validity of the methodological critique he delievers. I have yet to see you argue against anything he says about that, except yelling about ideology all the time.
4/10/06 9:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1908
"well, that Kamin doesn´t agree with the ideological implications, doesn´t in any way remove the validity of the methodological critique he delievers." True. I'll agree with that. "I have yet to see you argue against anything he says about that, except yelling about ideology all the time." Sure, I'll own that. It's been a while since I read Murray's reply to Kamin's SCIAM article so I can't really do it justice working off of memory, and I cna't control the fact that Commentary charges for access to its archives. I'll try to find a hyperlink to a copy of Murray's reply that's available for free. And if you care to read it rather than just dismiss it, that NeoEugenics page posts a lot of material from other scholars arguing with various points Kamin has made throughout his career. You could also look into Harvard evolutionary psychology professor Steven Pinker's 2002 book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature where he blasts people on the Left AND on the Right who choose to ignore Darwin and genetic determinism despite what mainstream science has to say. He singles out Kamin by name.
4/11/06 5:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13039

Thanks for the tip, I just bought that book by Pinker btw, I very much look forward to read it.

4/11/06 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 13-Apr-06 01:09 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1915
I think you'll like it. It's very powerfully argued. Pinker once had a quote that I really enjoyed. He was addressing the criticism that the concept of genetic determinism is depressing, "not uplifting," etc.:
Sophisticated people sneer at feel-good comedies and saccharine romances in which everyone lives happily ever after. But when it comes to science, these same people say, "Give us schmaltz!" They expect the science of human beings to be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational sermonizing.
I finally found Murray's Commentary magazine reply to Kamin and others, here: http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/murray-bc-crit
4/12/06 5:24 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Apr-06
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13045
Thanks alot, I´ll check it out.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.