Time-scales

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers, "victoriatangoman" wrote:
>
> > --- In spacesettlers, "Xenophile" wrote:
>
> >> I think that maybe, just maybe, I was a bit too snarly in my
> >> replies re: IQ. When I have taken such tests, I have ranged
from
> >> 121 to 134. This, plus what I hear about cultural bias,
>
> > And therein lies the danger. There is a battle going on with the
> > Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and Richard
>
> MARXISTS!? What has Marxism to do with whether or not the tests
are
> valid, and if valid, then how valid?

Yeah, that's what I thought when I first waded into this topic about
five years ago.

Marxism isn't just a governmental political philosphy, it's a world
view.

You'd be surprised how much of what we know is a philosphical
construction. Ever hear the term "blank slate?" You're born without
imprint and your life experiences fill in the slate. That concept
started with Locke.

The Noble savage, where people are born good and corrupted by
society is another.

Is there such a thing as human nature? If so does genetics play a
part?

Read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." I think he describes the
Marxist perspective as well as detailing the dirty tricks and smears
conducted by Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin in their battles against the
sociobiologists. But with time even they couldn't hold back the tide
of genetic research and the facts that it's uncovering.

>
> > Dawkins pushing to completely eliminate genetic basis because it
> > runs counter to their peceptions of humanity and how the world
> > shold work.
>
> I'm not denying genetics. I think that genetics, childhood
> nutrition, and the way your mind is trained while you are growing
up
> all have a lot to do with how smart one turns out. Probably more
> stuff as well.

And no one denies those inputs. The geneticists just don't know how
much to ascribe to them. It's looking like they're less and less
important though. But there is also an innateness that you are born
with, and that is disputed by the "nuturists."

>
> > Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" addressed the IQ question and it
> > was a very influential book in its time. Through questionable
> > rhetorical tactics Gould made his case and found a following. The
> > book has pretty much now been debunked but it's meme lives on.
>
> I've never read it, but that doesn't mean that a meme couldn't
reach
> my through roundabout ways.

I'm sure it did. It's pervasive. It had me and I wasn't even
interested in the topic back then. But since I've ordered my life's
philosophies with the scientific method being one of the primaries,
I had a long process of "rethink," examination and study coming to
terms with issues this topic has raised with me. It was hard for me
to argue against facts, so something had to give.

I have to say, I'm so glad I'm not on campus these days. The
intellectual climate at universities is stifling. Pity.

> > Also, as Al Globus pointed out, an IQ of 100 is the population
> > mean.
> > You will always have the majority of people scoring 100, even
> > accounting for the Flynn Effect which sees IQs rising over time.
> > The mean just has to be adjusted back to 100.
>
> True. So the quantum chip guy has made an IQ of 100 much smarter
> than it used to be.

Yeah. So what about the guy who has the readjusted IQ of 170, who's
now in the top 1000th of the population. Is he like the uber-dork,
or what?

>
> >> Also, I am into transhumanism (a little bit), and tend to look
> >> on eugenics for intelligence the way a sports car buff might
look
> >> at racehorse breeding. Yes, if you breed fast-running mares to
> >> fast-running stallions, and do so for several generations of
> >> horses, then you are likely to wind up with a generation of
horses
> >> which run faster than any horse has run before... and any cross-
> >> eyed granny in a VW bug can leave horse and rider in her dust
(not
> >> to mention somebody in a Ferrari!).
>
> > Your acknowledgement of the breeding aspect puts you in another
> > camp from that of Gould et al. who believe that IQ is a concept
> > which can't be measured and has no genetic component.
>
> Well of course. Wadayatank I am, a Marxist? ^_~

LOL

TangoMan