Correlation between stupidity and obesity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello,

since there is no point reading this thread I just didn't read it. Whether there is a correlation between stupidity and obesity isn't really interesting. What would be interesting is if there would be a causal correlation between stupidity and obesity, or obesity and stupidity.

Btw, moreover, we might want to specify what stupid refers to: annoying? Dull minded? Meaningless?

carry on with your pointless drivel.
 
What would be interesting would be if you fucked off seeing as you have got nothing to add to the arguement but arrogant patronization of the proponents of a compelling arguement.
 
Indeed. It is apparently not important to point out that only a causal correlation has any value!?!?

My apologies. I temporarily forgot this is sciforums and not a science forum.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Indeed. It is apparently not important to point out that only a causal correlation has any value!?!?
Click to expand...
Yes of course that is obvious, I have stated many times that my points is that one may well be causing a correlation in the other.

spuriousmonkey said:
My apologies. I temporarily forgot this is sciforums and not a science forum.
Click to expand...

Which you are the longest standing poster in
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Hello,

since there is no point reading this thread I just didn't read it.
Click to expand...

Then let's not break this nice tradition of yours. You know what I do with threads I don't care about? I DO NOT READ THEM!!! :)

It is also called free choice....
 
smokers--- drivers--- sports people

I am still waiting for one of you to explain why when the entire basis of your argument is that you consider intelligent people to be too intelligent to over eat (thus becoming obese) why intelligent people smoke? Or are you saying they don't?

Are you saying intelligent people do NOT do anything dangerous or without a rubber etc etc

Your argument is entirely beased on the fact you think intelligent people have no hedonistic tendancies and full self control. I have not the seen the study which links self control to intelligence or intelliegnce to deprivation of hedonistic traits? Please direct me to it.
 
Last edited:
Theoryofrelativity said:
smokers--- drivers--- sports people

I am still waiting for one of you to explain why when the entire basis of your argument is that you consider intelligent people to be too intelligent to over eat (thus becoming obese) why intelligent people smoke? Or are you saying they don't?

Are you saying intelligent people do NOT do anything dangerous or without a rubber etc etc

Your argument is entirely beased on the fact you think intelligent people have no hedonistic tendancies and full self control. I have not the seen the study which links self control to intelligence or intelliegnce to deprivation of hedonistic traits? Please direct me to it.
Click to expand...

No Tor that is not the only basis for argument, but education in regards to what one eats is a possible part of it and yes there may also be a connection between smoking and intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Theoryofrelativity said:
smokers--- drivers--- sports people

I am still waiting for one of you to explain why when the entire basis of your argument is that you consider intelligent people to be too intelligent to over eat (thus becoming obese) why intelligent people smoke? Or are you saying they don't?

Are you saying intelligent people do NOT do anything dangerous or without a rubber etc etc

Your argument is entirely beased on the fact you think intelligent people have no hedonistic tendancies and full self control. I have not the seen the study which links self control to intelligence or intelliegnce to deprivation of hedonistic traits? Please direct me to it.
Click to expand...
Talk about missing the point...

The debate is whether there is a statistical corellation between intelligence and obesity, and whether there is a causal relationship in either direction.

And it may or may not be genetic, as sam enjoys pointing out.
 
superluminal said:
Talk about missing the point...

The debate is whether there is a statistical corellation between intelligence and obesity, and whether there is a causal relationship in either direction.

And it may or may not be genetic, as sam enjoys pointing out.
Click to expand...

all of which could be applied to smoking and anything else considered bad for ones health (though smoking is not of course genetic).

You're all bonkers
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
all of which could be applied to smoking and anything else considered bad for ones health (though smoking is not of course genetic).

You're all bonkers
Click to expand...

You know as a certain fact that a person's propensity to smoke is not, even to some extent, caused by his genetics? Wow. That's some remarkable intuition you have there.

You'd be surprised how much genetics can determine a person.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/twin1.htm
You'd do well to read this article. It's not boring, so there's a chance that you might actually go ahead and do it. Maybe even learn something in the process.
 
francois said:
You know as a certain fact that a person's propensity to smoke is not, even to some extent, caused by his genetics? Wow. That's some remarkable intuition you have there.

You'd be surprised how much genetics can determine a person.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/twin1.htm
You'd do well to read this article. It's not boring, so there's a chance that you might actually go ahead and do it. Maybe even learn something in the process.
Click to expand...

from your link

"Both Jims smoked Salem cigarettes and drank Miller Lite beer"

Hands up who here smokes cigs and drinks beer

This PROVES that smoking is genetic does it?

"Both Jims had at one time held part-time posts as sheriffs."

Being part time Sherrif also genetic?

This could prove that closely related people have a telepathic link BUT IT no way proves that these things are genetic.

There is a saying that goes something like this

rather be a silent fool than open your mouth and advertise the fact ;)



(just for the record my bf whom I am NOT related to share the following traits: we both like science, we both have two sugars in our tea, we both like the opposite sex, we both drive cars, we both live in houses, we both like cats, we both own pc's, we are both right handed, we both wear the same brand of hair gel, we both like sweets, we both ..........you know there is a lot of STUFF out there and anyone can find IDENTICAL similarities if you ask enough questions. What about all the stuff that differs?)
 
Last edited:
Theoryofrelativity said:
from your link

"Both Jims smoked Salem cigarettes and drank Miller Lite beer"

Hands up who here smokes cigs and drinks beer

This PROVES that smoking is genetic does it?

"Both Jims had at one time held part-time posts as sheriffs."

Being part time Sheriff also genetic?
Click to expand...
You really are incapable of having thoughts that are even slightly complex, aren't you? I'm not saying that being a sheriff, or drinking Miller Lite, or smoking Salem cigarettes is genetic. I'm saying that genetics influence us profoundly, as identical twin studies repeatedly show us. Take people who say they may avoid drinking because alcoholism runs in the family. They're not genetically predisposed to be addicted specifically to alcohol. They're probably more genetically predisposed to be addicted to substances--and that substance more often than not, turns out being alcohol.

This could prove that closely related people have a telepathic link BUT IT no way proves that these things are genetic.
Click to expand...
lol. It could prove that they have a telepathic link?! Wtf? Please let's not go there. My point is that we're affected profoundly by genetics--to a degree greater than most people think. It's not impossible--like you seem to think--that a person's propensity to smoke can be partly due to genetic factors--similar to the propensity of some people to be addicted to alcohol.
There is a saying that goes something like this rather be a silent fool than open your mouth and advertise the fact ;)
Click to expand...
Fascinating that you, of all people, are saying that. Well, I guess not really. You know... cause you're dumb and stuff. :(
 
Actually, I first heard of that story in my psychology class text book. Those things mentioned in that article are only a few of the vast number of extremely specific things they had in common. They were nearly identical people.
 
In general, ToR's position of singling out instances of exceptions to a postulate and concluding that the postulate (or its proponents) is "bonkers" is a typically female reaction (based on long experience with females).

"There must be spirits because I've seen them."
or,

"My boyfriend is fat, but he's a genius so there goes your theory out the window."

The concept of a general correlation and a possible general causal relationship in the population as a whole, is apparently difficult to concieve.

For the record, I see no convincing evidence yet of a positive causal relationship between obesity and intelligence. There may indeed be a correlation. Or not. We need solid, convincing data.
 
Last edited:
superluminal said:
For the record, I see no convincing evidence yet of a positive causal relationship between obesity and intelligence. There may indeed be a correlation. Or not. We need solid, convincing data.
Click to expand...

so you took my 'you're all bonkers' and cleverly reworded it to conclude the above, well done!

;)

(jesting aside, I said this already in earlier posts, but it seems to have been overlooked, Imaplank was asked to provide evidence, which he did by confirming that he himself was thin. Of course this supported my argument and not his)
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
so you took my 'you're all bonkers' and cleverly reworded it to conclude the above, well done!)
Click to expand...
No we took your argument that the only reason there could be a connection was because thick people are uneducated and therefor overeat or smoke, to conclude you were not able to see the general point made i.e that there may be a correlation in the figures but the possible reasons are not yet narrowed down and certainly should not be dismissed for your one rather unimaginiative reason alone.

;)
Theoryofrelativity said:
, Imaplank was asked to provide evidence, which he did by confirming that he himself was thin. Of course this supported my argument and not his)
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top