Genetic Intelligence - Fact or Myth?

[anileve]

This is for you, you immature, pompous egocentrics. Read and weep.

Are boys brain-boxes or girls geniuses?

Tyler (1965) found that there was no difference in the mean IQ scores for men and women, but that the distribution of IQ in men was larger than in women. This seems to imply that there are more male than female geniuses, but also more retarded men at the bottom end of the scale. The eminent, recently-deceased psychologist Hans Eysenck said that in fact there were as many sub-normal women as men but that, "mentally defective women may have been able, if at all attractive, to escape institutionalisation by marrying." This ‘dumb-blonde’ theory, attractive though it seems to many male psychologists, has little biological credibility. Males suffer from genetic problems: they are more prone to sex-linked diseases (such as autism) which affect their brain function and are four times more likely to develop a stutter, which can also inhibit their learning potential.

There is strong evidence that men and women perform very differently on the tests. Men seem to perform much better on the visuo-spatial intelligence areas. This may explain why men tend to dominate in the scientific, engineering and technical fields. Why should this difference be present? There is little evidence to suggest that it is genetic or hormonal (in fact, studies have shown that no link exists). The likely answer lies in cultural factors: boys are encouraged to play more with toys which develop visuo-spatial awareness, such as cars and trains. Some researchers have even suggested that this performance is primeval: males of other species also exhibit better visuo-spatial skills, and hence are better hunters.

There is comfort for the ladies however: they perform much better at verbal tests. This correlates quite well with the evidence that girls start talking from an earlier age and generally have larger vocabularies. The difference in performance here, however, is less marked than the difference in visuo-spatial tests (indeed, men are better than women at comprehension exercises). Here again the discrepancy is probably environmental. Moss (1967) showed that mothers talk much more with their daughters than with their sons and Trudgill (1972) found that parents were less likely to correct sloppy language from their sons. This exhibits itself in the way in which men and women think. Men have a much more divergent approach to ideas and questions.

The evidence seems to show that men and women score the same IQ on average, but get that score in different ways. There is also no avoiding the statistical truth that women’s IQ is much less widely spaced from the mean, and for sound biological reasons. In men, the X and Y chromosomes do not pair up i.e. they do not affect the way in which the other functions. That means that the X chromosome (which contains far more genetic information than the Y) is expressed without regulation. In women, the two X chromosomes do regulate each other’s expression.

The final word, however, should go to the great English thinker Samuel Johnson. Asked if man were more intelligent than woman, he simply replied, "Which man? Which woman?"
====================

So where are the results of so called "tests that men are smarter on the average?" I'd like to see a proof of that, rather than some inflated assumption based on subjectivity and limited personal experience, nothing more than an attempt to fuel the fire and step on people's toes to elevate one's self worth.

[loseyourname]

Only alleles that exclusively exist on the X chromosome (have no corresponding locus on the Y) and are recessive are expressed in males and not in females. The vast majority of genes are still subject to dominant/recessive regulated expression.

[PASAMONSTER]

the last date i see on that piece is 1972

thats over 30 years old
thats not a fact anymore, but merely a piece of paper to wipe your rear

[anileve]

Loser, thanks for that biology lesson, what is your point?

[PASAMONSTER]

next you gonna tell us that in 1952 test showed that woman had more braincells then man/


get some updated facts.

[Anonymouse]

Now what was the original intent of this topic? Age differences? If you tarts want to start a thread about biological differences between men and women, go to the god damn intellectual forum. This is "Love and Romance" and the emphasis was on age differences.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by loseyourname Only alleles that exclusively exist on the X chromosome (have no corresponding locus on the Y) and are recessive are expressed in males and not in females. The vast majority of genes are still subject to dominant/recessive regulated expression.

Furthermore, because women have far more redundant genetic information, they are more prone to transciptional errors, which can make them more susceptible to cancer.

[anileve]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER the last date i see on that piece is 1972

thats over 30 years old
thats not a fact anymore, but merely a piece of paper to wipe your rear

Well if this is not an acceptable piece of information, due to its outdated material, we shall rely on your superior knowledge of this subject and hope that you can provide us with some other sufficient source or information which is acceptable by your standards. I am waiting...

[PASAMONSTER]

point is I posted a mathematical problem and you posted a mathematical problem, and critisized me for not knowing the answer.

I gave the correct sollution to the answer.

yet i don't see a solution to your problem.

therefore,

Me Man Smarter.

You woman needs to learn not to underestimate other people, especially Men.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by anileve Loser, thanks for that biology lesson, what is your point?

The point is that it is wrong to say that male genetic expression is completely unregulated by the Y chromosome. The chromosomes match up perfectly for the majority of loci. Most traits are not sex determined.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Now what was the original intent of this topic? Age differences? If you tarts want to start a thread about biological differences between men and women, go to the god damn intellectual forum. This is "Love and Romance" and the emphasis was on age differences.

I believe you were one of the 3 musketeers that agreed with the idea that "men are generally smarter than women", now contribute or keep smiling.

[Anonymouse]

Come on moderators, enforce on topic status. We should have on topic legislation circulating to make sure that we have effective regulation.

[loseyourname]

Good enough for you, Mousy?

[PASAMONSTER]

I propose a challenge

you pick your 5 women girls ladies.

against your choise of 5 men from forum and to take your choise of tests.

but i judge to see if they are fair or nor.

that will be our research

hows that




hey i was like what the hell happened

[whitelotus]

eek what a scary proposal monster

[anileve]

Originally posted by loseyourname The point is that it is wrong to say that male genetic expression is completely unregulated by the Y chromosome. The chromosomes match up perfectly for the majority of loci. Most traits are not sex determined.

I am still not understanding what you are getting at. The traits are not controlled by the constitution of the chromosomes but rather by the social factors. Please present some scientific proof of your theory, rather than chanting the powerful legacy of a Y chromosome.

This is a stupid title for a thread by the way. I think it's completely useless for us to debate about this subject. I for one don't believe that such argument can even be valid, since I am not advocating intelligence of one gender over another. It is you that starting this silly rant on how man are smarter. I am simply stating that chromosomes do not dictate intellect.

[anileve]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER I propose a challenge

you pick your 5 women girls ladies.

against your choise of 5 men from forum and to take your choise of tests.

but i judge to see if they are fair or nor.

that will be our research

hows that

I don't really care to conduct this preposterous study, since I believe it is absolutely to assume that ones gender decides the ability to perform intellectually superior over another.

[loseyourname]

Intelligence is genetic. It is not controlled by social factors. Neither are genetic diseases or cancer.

[PASAMONSTER]

as it should be
its an invitation for women to match wits with the men

a test, an experiment by us for us on us.

[Anonymouse]

Intelligence is genetic, only egalitarian fiction would assume otherwise. The silly discussion is hardly worth the tones it is evoking. Let's get more cordial folks.

[SagGal]

Is this because of my "Age Difference" thread? OMG. I did not say that women are smarter than men. Jees. Maturity does not mean the same as smarts.

[loseyourname]

Bouchard and McGue (1981) conducted a review of family studies on IQ, and found that results obtained from many of the studies were consistent with the polygenetic theory of inheritance because the correlation between family member's scores on intelligence measures roughly corresponded to the proportion of genes shared between those family members.

One of the most well researched genes known to play a role in cognitive ability is the fragile X mental retardation gene FMR1 located on the X chromosome. Fragile X syndrome is characterized by x linked physical characteristics such as macroorchidism (increased testicular volume), long face, large protruding ears, and social eye gaze avoidance (De Vries et. al., 1997). The cognitive phenotype of the fragile X syndrome includes deficits in executive function, decrease in attention and viseo spatial memory, and decreased IQ (Menon et. al., 2000).

The FMR1 gene is associated with a series of trinucleotide repeats (CGG). Normal FMR1 genes are associated with 6 to 54 repeats, but can also expand to a length of 50 to 200 repeats in phenotypically normal individuals (Fu, et. al., 1991). The full mutation of FMR1 can contain as many as 2000 repeats, and individuals with the full mutation almost always show IQ scores in the mentally retarded range (Daniels, et. al., 1998). However, the length of the trinucleotide repeat series in those who do not carry the full mutation was not found to have any significant correlation with intelligence scores in those individuals (Franke et. al., 1999).

Menon et. al. (2000) found that disruption in FMR1 gene expression leads to decreased levels of FMR1 protein (FMRP) levels in the brain. The mutated gene form contains an area within the gene that prevents transcription of the gene leading to a decreased level of FMRP in the brain, which has been linked to abnormal formation of dendritic spines in the cortex which may impede learning and memory (Hinton et. al., 1991).

Additionally, the FMR2 gene, which lies distal to FMR1 along the X chromosome, has been implicated in fragile X syndrome. FMR2 is similar to FMR1 in that it contains a series of trinucleotide repeats (CGG) that result in expression of the fragile X phenotype in mutations containing over 200 repeats. As with FMR1, however, normal variation in the size of the gene is not associated with variation in intellectual performance (Mazzocco and Reiss, 1999).

While fragile X syndrome is the leading cause of inherited familial mental retardation, there are also a number of other genes present on the X chromosome that seem to play a role in intelligence and cognitive ability. For instance, Borjeson Forssman Lehmann syndrome (BFLS) is a syndromal X linked mental retardation involving a gene coding for fibroplast growth factor homologous factor 2 (FGF2) (Baker et al, 1999). Also, Hamel et al (1997) describe a syndrome involving X linked mental retardation, ataxia, loss of vision, and a fatal course in early childhood. This syndrome was linked to a gene (Xq21.33 to q24) that codes for two myelin proteins in the central nervous system. Finally, Nussbaum et al (1997) have linked the oculocerebrorenal syndrome of Lowe (OCRL), a rare X linked disorder characterized by mental retardation, congenital cataracts, and a disorder of the renal system, to a gene on the X chromosome (Xq25 to 26). However, they have not yet uncovered the action of the gene, nor have they uncovered its effects on the body's systems.

Another effort to track down genes that may play a role in intelligence is the IQ quantitative trait loci project, an association study examining gene markers of neurological relevance linked with intelligence (Plomin et al, 1994). Thus far, the study has singled out three markers that seem to have a significant association with IQ; the HLA A (B) allele; CTG B33, a trinucleotide repeat; and EST00083, a marker associated with mitochondrial DNA.

The HLA A (B) allele has been associated, along with the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene, with the age of onset of Alzheimer's disease. The e4 allele of the ApoE gene has been shown to be one of the factors considered to increase the risk and decrease the age of onset of Alzheimer's disease in direct proportion to the number of e4 alleles expressed (Owen, Liddell, and McGuffin, 1994). ApoE is present in cerebrospinal fluid and is thought to have a stimulatory effect in promoting structural changes following brain injury and neurodegeneration (Turic et al, 2001). Less is known about the HLA A (B) gene, but studies have associated it with late onset Alzheimer's in ApoE negative subjects (Lehmann et al, 2001). However, no associated between general intelligence scores and HLA A or ApoE genes has been found in the general population (Jacomb et al., 1999; Turic et al., 2001).

Additionally, little is yet known about the other two markers uncovered by the IQ quantitative trait loci project: CTG B33, and the mitochondrial EST00083. Moises et al (1999) examined EST00083, but found no association with high versus average IQ in the general population. Jacomb et al (1999) also examined CTG B33 polymorphisms and found no association with variation in IQ.

[PASAMONSTER]

Saggal it wasn't you

It was Ms. Feminist thang over there.

[loseyourname]

Genius Gene

Scientists in the United States claim to have found a genetic basis for intelligence. In a study of intellectually gifted children, the researchers say they've found differences in their DNA compared to that of average children. Advocates of eugenics - the science of selectively breeding humans for certain traits or behaviours, have welcomed the research. They say it could be used to breed brighter humans. But critics maintain that something as complex as intelligence can't be narrowed down to just a few genes. Corinne Podger, of BBC Science, reports.

The genes and intelligence research is being done at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Two hundred intellectually gifted children are here for the summer to attend intensive college-level courses. In exams and IQ tests, they score in the top few per-cent for their age. And, as part of a study of 5,000 extremely bright children, samples have been taken of their DNA - and that of their parents - to see if there's anything unusual about it. Dr David Lubinski, Psychology Professor at Vanderbilt, explains:

‘Basically what we’re looking at is different genes and looking at different gene frequencies in high ability children versus typical children. We’re uncovering a few gene frequencies that do appear to be different.’

Listen to Dr David Lubinski explain the purpose of his research programme

In other words, Dr Lubinski says they're finding some genes occurring "more frequently" in bright children compared to their average peers. The discovery's been welcomed by right-wing eugenicists like Charles Murray, who's published books and articles in the US arguing that genetics holds the key to social problems like poverty. Mr Murray believes the Nashville team are close to finding a so-called "genius gene" which could bestow intelligence on anyone who has it. Such a finding, he says, would enable scientists and parents to breed brighter children.

‘What's going to happen in the next 10 or 20 years is we can have eugenics with a smiling face, so we no longer require that the lower classes have fewer babies, we will just have them have better babies as we learn how to do gene therapy. Well, in a sense this isn't so bad - suppose we have a gene therapy that will raise IQ’s by 15 points. I think parents - it’s okay if they have the right to introduce those changes, in their own children.’

Whilst Lubinski and his team have found that particular genes appear to occur more commonly in children who do well at school, he claims that many other genes are crucial to the learning process. Susan Greenfield, Pharmacology Professor at Oxford University, agrees. She says manipulating individual genes won't guarantee smarter babies:

‘What a gene will do is express a protein, and we’re talking here probably about a protein in the brain. Now that could do many things. It would perhaps change the availability of a certain chemical in the brain or the way that chemical worked, and what you could talk about perhaps is a change in arousal levels or something very basic and very widespread in the brain that in turn had an indirect effect on how well people concentrated let’s say, and therefore how well they performed in tests. And that’s very different from talking about a gene for a specific defined trait like intelligence.’

'While a single defective gene can cause disease or dysfunctional behaviour, a single healthy gene isn't a magic key to intelligence or athletic ability'

'We are always better off with good knowledge than we are with ignorance'

Some day, scientists may be able to influence a person's intelligence by manipulating their genes - but even the Vanderbilt University team admit that's decades away. For Lubinski, he says that unproven hopes - or fears shouldn’t govern research in this field:

‘Sometimes it frightens people, because all-powerful scientific findings can be misused. But the position most scientists take and the position I take is that we’re always better off with good knowledge than we are with ignorance.’

Dr Lubinski's work will be published by the US National Institute of Health next year. In the meantime, the prospect that babies may one day be "engineered" to be smarter will continue to be thrilling to some, and deeply unsettling to others.

[SagGal]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER Saggal it wasn't you

It was Ms. Feminist thang over there. Oooooh k.

[anileve]

Originally posted by SagGal Is this because of my "Age Difference" thread? OMG. I did not say that women are smarter than men. Jees. Maturity does not mean the same as smarts.

No dear, it was Arvy's lucid post and it took a Man with a Gun to take it to the chauvinist concept, then loser stepped in to make his empty point about the significance of a Y chromosomes.

Once again, I will say this, this is a discussion for arrogant chauvinists who keep ranting on about the superiority of intelligence in male genes. I was simply advocating that it is decided by social factors and cannot be dictated on the bases of a gender. But they keep going at it, trying to prove that men are smarter than women. Well keep on gentlemen, I will scurry out of this thread. This has been taken out of a context and turned into a battle of sexes fit for a late night Friday conversation with darts and a few bitter men.

[Anonymouse]

This thread is not an intellectual thread of discussing a topic cordially, it is an ideological battleground, I see no point to it. It's 'true believer' vs 'true believer'. Now loser, lets focus on the book club.

[loseyourname]

I never claimed men are smarter than women. I am only demonstrating that intelligence is genetically determined and that the vast majority of traits show no sex-linkage. I suggest the rest of you cool off. And yes, let us get back to the book club.

[anileve]

Thank you Moderator Loser, much better *sigh*:D

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by anileve So where are the results of so called "tests that men are smarter on the average?" I'd like to see a proof of that, rather than some inflated assumption based on subjectivity and limited personal experience, nothing more than an attempt to fuel the fire and step on people's toes to elevate one's self worth.

Originally posted by anileve I believe you were one of the 3 musketeers that agreed with the idea that "men are generally smarter than women", now contribute or keep smiling.



Originally posted by me because I am tired of this nonsenseThis is the last time I will say this. I never said that men are smarter. I was making a point about social conditioning. I do not believe in superiority between genders in anyway. If anyone from now on still believes that I have these chauvinistic views, you should do yourself and everyone else a favor a kill yourself.

[Fadix]

loseyourname, the two articles you posted does not support your claim regarding intelligence being a matter of genetic only... to the contrary.

The second article for instance, a small correlation could be found between intelligence and genetic, but the rest of those with high IQ did not possessed those genes markers in question. So if we were to apply your own standards to come up with your conclusion, we could take those children with high IQ without those genes and find an inverse correlation by claiming that those intelligence genes are in fact a dumb genes.(finding among those with low IQ some having those "intelligence" genes) Those two articles only shows that genetic has a role, but in our society environment plays a much wider role.

The same goes with diseases, genetic and environment have a role.

As for woman vs male intelligence. Intelligence is subjective, we may have different results depending what we try to measure.

[Anonymouse]

Uh oh, a forum hater. Welcome on the first post. Now now Fadix, let's not get hateful here. You're just jealous this place rocks.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Uh oh, a forum hater. Welcome on the first post. Now now Fadix, let's not get hateful here. You're just jealous this place rocks.

Forum hater? Do I have the right to have my opinions without being a hater? If it is not so, should you be called a "black" hater then?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Forum hater? Do I have the right to have my opinions without being a hater? If it is not so, should you be called a "black" hater then?

How am I a black hater? It's amazing how you and anileve both have made that spurious leap of faith in smearing someone a "racist" or "fascist" or "black hater" for merely contending against egalitarian fiction. You will have to do better than that to vindicate yourself Mr. Fadix.

And I was only making a joke, lighten up.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Anonymouse How am I a black hater? It's amazing how you and anileve both have made that spurious leap of faith in smearing someone a "racist" or "fascist" or "black hater" for merely contending against egalitarian fiction. You will have to do better than that to vindicate yourself Mr. Fadix.

And I was only making a joke, lighten up.

Anon, where have I called you a black hater?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Anon, where have I called you a black hater?

Nevermind, let's get this thraed back on topic.

[anileve]

Now, now children, lets simmer down. The only hater around here is me. :D Hater of hatred.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Fadix The second article for instance, a small correlation could be found between intelligence and genetic, but the rest of those with high IQ did not possessed those genes markers in question.

Correlation is correlation, and nowhere was the word "small" to be found in the article. Don't mischaracterize the claim being made. I didn't say it was proof. It is evidence. The studies have barely begun to be conducted. You should read the book "Genome" by Matt Ridley.

So if we were to apply your own standards to come up with your conclusion, we could take those children with high IQ without those genes and find an inverse correlation by claiming that those intelligence genes are in fact a dumb genes.(finding among those with low IQ some having those "intelligence" genes)

Yes, intelligent children are more likely to have a certain gene, so we can call it a "dumb" gene. Brilliant observation.

Those two articles only shows that genetic has a role, but in our society environment plays a much wider role.

That claim is completely unfounded. I backed mine up with evidence. You backed yours up with nothing.

The same goes with diseases, genetic and environment have a role.

Of course. Some genes are expressed, some are not, and it depends on the environment, both during fetal development and, to a lesser extent, later in life. Doesn't change the fact that someone without the gene for a certain genetic disease will not contract the disease.

As for woman vs male intelligence. Intelligence is subjective, we may have different results depending what we try to measure.

If you can measure it, it isn't subjective.

[God]

You cant measure it...

I would enjoy reading your views on intelligence (human intelligence).

Can intelligence be measured or determined?

A person’s IQ (intelligence quotient) is the ratio of tested mental age to chronological age; a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test. Can an IQ test conclude which human is smarter when compared with another individual? If intelligence has some sort of measurement, it winds-up indicating that intellect can equal zero. Is it possible for a person to have “zero” intelligence?

In my opinion, I think that an IQ test just illustrates how well a person can do certain subjects such as math or how well the brain processes certain tasks such as pattern recognition. But why does that mean that people who can comprehend certain material on the IQ test better than others indicate they are smarter?

Is a brilliant philosopher smarter than an astounding mathematician?

Is Amadeus Mozart, with an IQ of 185, more intelligent than you? Is Isaac Newton?

Is a Harvard graduate brighter than a high school dropout?

Intelligence is the faculty of thought and reason. However, thought and reason are limitless and immeasurable.

Intelligence is determined by your capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Each person has a life span. Throughout their life they acquire unique knowledge that differs from every individual. A college graduate might have more knowledge in school subjects (i.e., math) compared to a dropout. However, if the two of them have existed the same amount of time, each have extremely different experiences acquired throughout their life. “Life experience” for each person is interpreted and applied to their knowledge. So how can one person’s knowledge be deemed more valuable or superior to another’s?

What is your opinion? I'm too unintelligent to figure it out. . .

[God]

If you can measure it, it isn't subjective.



Intelligence isn't subjective, it's irrelevant how?

If you take things seriously, then intelligence becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are (however you measure it), it matters what you do with the abilities you have. Now, it may not pay to take it seriously but it's been my experience that many share this view. Why? I guess it makes them feel better, but it's a hollow feeling...
I am your GOD

[spookyghost]

i believe that intelligence is genetic

i dont feel like posting articles and what not, but this is my opinion

[Siggie]

As usual... i havn't read everything.

I lecture on this is my psych class...

Intelligence is a product of both the environment and genetics.

Some have an advantage at birth, but in the first couple years of life the number of neural connections that are made will pretty much determine how intelligent a person will be. It's that simple really. If you dont have the connections, there's only so much you can do. *shrug*

[Anonymouse]

What you have here are a few individuals ( egalitarian leaning ), who themselves haven't read the basics on genetics or heredity, and are disseminating their opinions of it ought to be environmental. Environment is only a minor factor in genetics, and humans have been breeding animals for thousands of years with their knowledge of genetics.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Siggie As usual... i havn't read everything.

I lecture on this is my psych class...

Intelligence is a product of both the environment and genetics.

Some have an advantage at birth, but in the first couple years of life the number of neural connections that are made will pretty much determine how intelligent a person will be. It's that simple really. If you dont have the connections, there's only so much you can do. *shrug*

What you have here is people who thinks they are better placed than the large majority of biologists, anthroplogist, geneticist etc.. to say what a race constitute. And to support their claims uses studies that are all financed from one organization that has been found in 1937 to "prove" white superiority and was a supporter of the NAZIsm.

One wonder, if it is so obvious what they claim, why any other researchs which were not financed by that organization concluded the contrary of what they affirmed. Maybe all those searchers, all illterate like me of heredity and genetic must takes courses given by the PhD in everything of this board.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix What you have here is people who thinks they are better placed than the large majority of biologists, anthroplogist, geneticist etc.. to say what a race constitute. And to support their claims uses studies that are all financed from one organization that has been found in 1937 to "prove" white superiority and was a supporter of the NAZIsm.

One wonder, if it is so obvious what they claim, why any other researchs which were not financed by that organization concluded the contrary of what they affirmed. Maybe all those searchers, all illterate like me of heredity and genetic must takes courses given by the PhD in everything of this board.

And now you appeal to a potential "ally". As soon as you start name calling people "racist" or "white supremacist" you have no argument, you are just name calling. You are saying "They are evil/bad", which is emotion, has nothing to do with logic. All you do is call names and label names. Of course when you have to resort to that it is the most graceless way of saying you've lost the argument. "White supremacy" is the desire to be coerce, and to rule over others, to oppress them. Not one thing I have ever suggested here, nor anyone else has meant anything about oppressing anyone. This is simply ignorant name calling, as usual with the egalitarian corner.

[Siggie]

Originally posted by Fadix What you have here is people who thinks they are better placed than the large majority of biologists, anthroplogist, geneticist etc.. to say what a race constitute. And to support their claims uses studies that are all financed from one organization that has been found in 1937 to "prove" white superiority and was a supporter of the NAZIsm.

One wonder, if it is so obvious what they claim, why any other researchs which were not financed by that organization concluded the contrary of what they affirmed. Maybe all those searchers, all illterate like me of heredity and genetic must takes courses given by the PhD in everything of this board.
:confused: :confused:

Uhh... People will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs are more intelligent than others why is it so hard to deal w/ the fact that a portion of intelligence is genetic?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Siggie :confused: :confused:

Uhh... People will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs are more intelligent than others why is it so hard to deal w/ the fact that a portion of intelligence is genetic?

Because it threatens to crumble his egalitarian world view that everyone is equal, and no matter how much you improve "environmental factors" and hire by quotas, or have affirmitive action, it still won't make certain groups any more intelligent than they already are.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Because it threatens to crumble his egalitarian world view that everyone is equal, and no matter how much you improve "environmental factors" and hire by quotas, or have affirmitive action, it still won't make certain groups any more intelligent than they already are.

Certain studends of history should know better than to believe in only those things that make them feel good about themselves.

[Anonymouse]

And what would that belief be? That we are not equal? I was unaware eggplants post in the Intellectual Lounge. ;)

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse And what would that belief be? That we are not equal? I was unaware eggplants post in the Intellectual Lounge. ;)

OK then you will have to concede that Asians are better than you in math, due to their genetic makeup.

[Siggie]

Originally posted by patlajan OK then you will have to concede that Asians are better than you in math, due to their genetic makeup.

:rolleyes: you didn't get it...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan OK then you will have to concede that Asians are better than you in math, due to their genetic makeup.

That is a fact, their analytical skills, their cognitive ability, intelligence and response time is above others. Just look at their alphabets..it would take a care more intelligent mind and better able to memorize, to know the nature of their alphabets, as they are more complex than any Western alphabet, like reading alien letters of the Predator in The Predator.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That is a fact, their analytical skills, their cognitive ability, intelligence and response time is above others. Just look at their alphabets..it would take a care more intelligent mind and better able to memorize, to know the nature of their alphabets, as they are more complex than any Western alphabet, like reading alien letters of the Predator in The Predator.

So why are the Chinese 20 years behind in missle technology?

[Anonymouse]

A more prudent question, why will China be the next superpower?

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse A more prudent question, why will China be the next superpower?

That's a changing of subjects and not a question at all. A classic mouse move. But if you were asian you would realize this. Instead you were doomed at birth.

[anileve]

Originally posted by patlajan That's a changing of subjects and not a question at all. A classic mouse move. But if you were asian you would realize this. Instead you were doomed at birth.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA! :D Vay badrjan, I like you man I really do! I have to say that some of the best times are when Anonymouse and Patlajan have fought with style. Yeah Baby, yeah! :D

[Anonymouse]

In fact it is within keeping of the subject. East Asia is one of the most racially homogenous places. Granted China has ethnic minorities but the majority of the Chinese are Han Chinese. Korea itself is homogenous despite North and South division. Japan itself, a capitalist country in the Western sense, still doesn't fiddle with "diversity is our strength", and mass immigration of third world immigrants.

Presently, all the "white" countries from Canada, to the United States, to Europe, and Australia are all immigrations third world immigrants in mass. The demographic shifts, if projected into a future, show "whites" as a minority in all these regions, and eventually extinction, due to low birthrates, immigration and mixing, but then again, this is the process of history. Hence why the East Asian countries will be the next dominant forces in due time, if the world doesn't end in 2012.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Siggie :confused: :confused:

Uhh... People will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs are more intelligent than others why is it so hard to deal w/ the fact that a portion of intelligence is genetic?


That is because there is different races of dog, but there is no human races. :) Actually there was the Neanthertalis which was another race of human, but they are extinct now.

[Anonymouse]

Sometimes our pseudo intellectualism seaps right through our typing, doesn't it?

[patlajan]

If you were Indian you coud have been a doctor. Now look at you posting away on an internet forum.

[Anonymouse]

I'm unaware what you're trying to get across with your torturous tirade of tedium.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I'm unaware what you're trying to get across with your torturous tirade of tedium.

But of course you are dear. I should save my torturous tirade for the Asianclub.com forum where they understand things quicker.

[Anonymouse]

Well look on the bright side, you were in an intelligence thread and used the worst grammar ever in one sentence.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well look on the bright side, you were in an intelligence thread and used the worst grammar ever in one sentence.

Well that's just silly. Have you read every sentence ever written? Apparently we are not shy about using exaggerations in the intelligence thread. Once again you prove yourself to be less than Asian. So sad for you white man.

[Anonymouse]

I have read enough to know when a sentence is severely lobotomized. We live and learn. At any rate, you live.

[G_spawn_J]

Intelligence has a plethora of meanings attached to it. Yet it seems as if philosophy would have some sort of impact on intelligence in a general sense due to the level of comprehension needed to understand what is being said. Several years ago there were works that were totally oblivious to me and I would have been just as well off reading Greek. Now, those same works are much easier to digest. This could be because I just understand through persistance, but it could also be that my education level was significantly higher before and after.
Another instance is the common social stereotype placed upon individuals who read philosophy. Having a large philosophical library I commonly hear, "You must be smart," when guests view my selections. Now I have tons of books on a variety of different subjects, but people always comment on intelligence whenever they witness my philosophy section.
Now I am not declaring that reading philosophy will automatically boost your I.Q. by 15 points, but it seems if there is an attachment to intelligence through some means be it fictitious or actual.
Thoughts?

so it goes MEN then women...
A question,who is the 1st man on earth and was he or she?
HUH:confused: Eveything is obvious ...

[sleuth]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I'm unaware what you're trying to get across with your torturous tirade of tedium.

Men are superior to women. For one thing, men can urinate from a speeding car.
"The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots."(West)