Deepthought, all humans living today are a member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. That is strictly biology.
Enmos,
That's strictly politics.
Deepthought, all humans living today are a member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. That is strictly biology.
Enmos,
That's strictly politics.
Unless you can substantiate your claim.
Why not just come out an say what you believe instead of going through all these middlement arguments.Who says that all living humans are members of the sub-species homo sapien sapien?
Err... the culture of latin speaking Europeans and their descendants in the New World?
You want me to endorse European colonial arrogance and its system of taxonomy?
I will accept that the term 'human' can be applied to all contemporary, bipedal lifeforms with quadruped ancestors sharing close genetic relations with primate groups. But not that we all share the same mental 'sentience'.
Homo sapien : Latin "wise man", "knowing man".
How many bipeds can that be applied to?
Hence, it's a matter of subjective opinion, and, therefore, political.
Good enough?
(PS: Why not get Enmos to prove it?)
Why not just come out an say what you believe instead of going through all these middlement arguments.
That's an option. I took another one. In one short sentence.Why don't you just come out an say he's a racist?
. I only said that the main influence is genetics which is consistent with science.
abstract said:Abstract A similar pattern of spousal association for IQ scores and personality traits was found in two British samples from Oxford and Cambridge. There was no indirect evidence from either sample to suggest that convergence occurred during marriage. All observed assortative mating might well be due to initial assortment.
Sam, I'm not making this a thing about race, although race does play a role. I will say this, however. There are whites who are intelligent and whites who are stupid. There are blacks who are intelligent and blacks who are stupid. That's about as far as I will go with that in this discussion.
Sam, how do your justify not being a hereditarian (am I wrong in assuming this about you?), in light of what homozygotic twin studies say?
Pretty smart compared to whom? What does an average IQ mean? Is the average IQ in NASA the same as the average IQ in the White House? What is the relative construct?All of my friends are pretty smart compared to the population mean. Coincidence? I doubt it. Everybody in my family is pretty smart. Coincidence?
Sniffy, I never said, nor was it ever my argument that environmental factors do not influence intelligence. I only said that the main influence is genetics which is consistent with science. Can you show that it is not?
Yes, IQ is what we use to indicate cognitive ability. Is it perfect? Does it tell you all about the different nuances in an individual's intelligence? No. Is it useful in predicting a person's ability to understand information, ability to train for jobs, and perform complex tasks? Immensely so. Why are people with high IQs so much better at these things than people with low IQs? Because they have higher general intelligence.
I remember talking about this with TimeTraveler a while ago. He was like "there is no such thing as general intelligence." How good one is at math has nothing to do with how good he is at, say, music or linguistics. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. All different facets of intelligence are, in fact, related. How good you are at math does have something to do with how good you are at linguistics. How good you are at music does have something to do with how good your memory is. If you're a prodigy at math, it doesn't mean you're going to be a prodigy at linguistics, but it does strongly suggest that you're going to be much better at linguistics than the average person. If you're a prodigy at music, it doesn't mean you're going to have a prodigal memory, but it does predict that you will have a better memory than most people. This is what science knows. This overlap in different cognitive abilities forms the basis of g. If you don't agree that there is such a thing as g, or that some people are generally smarter than others, then your opinion is in stark contrast to scientific fact.
There is such a thing as general intelligence. IQ predicts this correlation of cognitive abilities and that's why it is useful. That's why people with high IQs are more educated, have better health, have smarter spouses, have better jobs, earn more money, are more productive at their jobs, have lower incidences of incarceration, (the list goes on) than people with lower IQs. Coincidence? I doubt it.
What's wrong with making generalizations as long as you acknowledge that that's precisely what they are?Sweeping generalisations? You got it!
You people are so boring with your attacks. To you and your ilk, it all comes back to me, me, me, and especially my evil conservative agenda. Why do you feel the need to focus on me and my disease? Why don't you just be an intellectual and focus on what's being argued?My point is; so what? What is the point of this thread? To boast about how clever you and your family are and how you never have to mix with the stoopid people?
I wasn't tooting my horn numbnuts, I was making a point: have you never noticed how similar people cluster? Athletic people find athletic friends, intelligent people find intelligent friends, outcasts make outcast friends, and so on. "lol francois your so full of yourselflol"Do you know how stupid that sounds?
And no you haven't given any proof that genetics is the main influence on intelligence. If it were so wouldn't the smart people be way out numbering the dummies by now and you seem to imply that they are not?
1. Do twins share womb environments?
2. Are there substantial environmental differences between the twins?
Pretty smart compared to whom? What does an average IQ mean? Is the average IQ in NASA the same as the average IQ in the White House? What is the relative construct?
Why should I have to? This stuff is known by science. Would you similarly ask me for proof if I said that the Earth revolves around the sun? Look it up! This is not a controversial point. We've known this for decades!Francois I didn't ask for absolute proof only some proof.
Whoa. So you agree with me? If you want to know my point, you need only read the last sentence in my first original post.So aside from a thread that has been posted to state the obvious. I can only assume that you are trying to make some other interesting point about social stratification and culling.
And in future please don't bring my numb nuts into the equation or you'll find yourself with yours forcefully removed.
Not even the correlation between IQ scores and intelligence is "known" by science to be interpretable in the manner you suggest, letalone your somewhat fanciful sociological projections.francois] Why should I have to? This stuff is known by science.