Re: What do you consider more important.....
I'm not trying to debate anything. I'm asking you to consider it in any argument in favor or against inferiority, primitiveness, and low IQs.
My argument from the beginning has been that we are all homo-sapiens. Therefore we all produce people with higher IQs and people with lower IQs, if that is the way to measure intelligence (not my way, mind you! But it has clearly been the way of some people in this thread, including some of our scientists). Essentially, what makes us all equal in every way is our ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new situations — this is based on the very descriptive definition that one of our scientists on this thread posted earlier of intelligence, though the credit of this sophisticated and academic definition of intelligence goes to some person called Myers — plus, if I may add, having the capacity for linguistic and artistic competence among many other things. In other words, race is not a determining factor for high intelligence, something that Mouse is argue against. Although Siggie likes to pretend that she does not agree with Mouse's argument, she does support correlational statistics that have apparently proven beyond a shadow of doubt, despite their slight imperfections, that blacks are fifteen points behind the whites on IQ-tests.
Now argue why everyone in the world is capable of learning a language among many other "skills," yet is inferior or superior to someone else depending on which race they were born into.
Btw, it may make the likes of Mouse and Siggie happy to know that Armenians beat the Chinese at this year's Chess Olympiad. Apparently there is no guarantee for an Asian to beat another race at the most intellectual game that we know: chess. Not to mention that the Japanese are barely in the top 40, if I remember. And the Koreans.. let's not even mention them. Including the fact of course, that beside Japan, the rest of Asia is a complete and utter mess.
I'm not trying to debate anything. I'm asking you to consider it in any argument in favor or against inferiority, primitiveness, and low IQs.
My argument from the beginning has been that we are all homo-sapiens. Therefore we all produce people with higher IQs and people with lower IQs, if that is the way to measure intelligence (not my way, mind you! But it has clearly been the way of some people in this thread, including some of our scientists). Essentially, what makes us all equal in every way is our ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new situations — this is based on the very descriptive definition that one of our scientists on this thread posted earlier of intelligence, though the credit of this sophisticated and academic definition of intelligence goes to some person called Myers — plus, if I may add, having the capacity for linguistic and artistic competence among many other things. In other words, race is not a determining factor for high intelligence, something that Mouse is argue against. Although Siggie likes to pretend that she does not agree with Mouse's argument, she does support correlational statistics that have apparently proven beyond a shadow of doubt, despite their slight imperfections, that blacks are fifteen points behind the whites on IQ-tests.
Now argue why everyone in the world is capable of learning a language among many other "skills," yet is inferior or superior to someone else depending on which race they were born into.
Btw, it may make the likes of Mouse and Siggie happy to know that Armenians beat the Chinese at this year's Chess Olympiad. Apparently there is no guarantee for an Asian to beat another race at the most intellectual game that we know: chess. Not to mention that the Japanese are barely in the top 40, if I remember. And the Koreans.. let's not even mention them. Including the fact of course, that beside Japan, the rest of Asia is a complete and utter mess.
Comment