Ramius

What would happen if a bunch of east german twin scientists wearing kelly holcomb jerseys were rolling die and watching America's Stupidest Woman®? I think the fabric of spacetime would collapse. <Cue holcombs arm to tell us that space time doesnt really exist and that the world is actually flat, backed up by a hyperstats and wikipedia article>

well, i did find a high correlation between east german scientists and wikipedia when i googled them. so that means they MUST be heritable. I also did a study. when i used the same browser on 2 different computers to do my google search, i get similar results. But when i used a different browser to google them, i got different results. so obviously there is a correlation between firefox across coputers, but theres no google correlation between internet explorer and firefox. one oddity i noticed was that when i tried to open IE7, it kept saying it was opening IE 3.5. i think this is because internet explorer regressed to the mean. this would cause the difference in wikipedia heritability in east german scientists.

I'm good for it. My vote is for a 4 rounder. 7 rounds gets a bit tedious and a sometimes its a stretch to find someone to draft.

I am still waiting for the study that shows a high IQ = a productive member of scoiety.

phenotype = genotype + ENVIRONMENT

phenotype = genotype + ENVIRONMENT

are they going to strap a 2x4 on the ass of the winner to keep him from falling in?

He doesnt? You mean to tell me that mainstream science (biology to be specific) DOESNT think that phenotpye is caused only by genotype? oh my gosh! Yawn. HA's lack of knowledge is getting boring. Watching HA try to stop himself from drowning IS quite comical tho. Correlation now equals heritibility?

Ever consider Ngata MIGHT look a little bit better because he's playing with ray lewis, adalius thomas, ed reed, and an all-star defense? Methinks ngata would look quite a bit worse if he was on a team with few stars or a bad defense.

Nice to see you have gotten spakned and all you can do is whine and cry. Shutup B word.

Yup, if he actually read or understood what he was trying to argue, he;d see how wrong he is. but he lacks in the comprehension department.

Thanks for proving my point. You cant train someones eyes to go from green to blue. Because it is a physical trait. Intelligence, which isnt physical, CAN be trained. You cant train someone who runs a 4.4 40 to run a 4.2 40. But you can train someone who scores low on an IQ test (or wonderlic for that matter) to score higher the second time around. Hence environments huge role in intelligence. You CAN train someone to be smarter. You cant train someone to be more athletic. Thank you for proving both of my main points and disproving yours in a single post.

No, you;re wrong. but thats beside the point. you;ve been wrong for 4 months now, so i dont see you stopping anytime soon. What would get oyu laughed out of any meeting is quoting wikipedia as a credible source. Quoting Wikipedia as a reliable source is roughly equivalent to quoting TSW for Bills news.

Yah, people get stupider as they get older. my God, where do you come up with this stuff? The latest trekkie convention? And i never mentioned any correlation between adoptive mother and adopted children IQ. In a good environment, a child will show a lot more intelligence, regardless of IQ, than a child reared in a poor environment. Ok, hitler. Which race are you planning to exterminate first? And are you doing the killings, or are you sending kurt godel to do it for you? And yes, ANYONE can be a top scientist or engineer with a little bit of hard work and effort. Its called learning, something in which you are severely retarded. Its your inability to learn or comprehend anything that makes you come on the internet and spew your drivel about a master race, Nazi.

good post. The 2 main points HA's wrong on are that 1. he thinks intelligence isnt influnced much by environment (this statement shows that he lacks even the most basic understanding of genes, genetics, and how genes are expressed as measureable or immeasureabel characteristics. He lacks any knowledge of the whole genotype to phenotype relationship. And 2. That IQ is somehow a good statistical measurement of "intelligence".

I know. But the opportunity was too good to pass up. Plus, in all of his inane arguements, he's flip-flopped countless times, so i figure i am allowed ot do it once to drive home a point.

Environment: Twins have a higher correlation in their test scores than unrelated children. That shows that there is some type of genetic aspect to intelligence. this isnt debated. Ever hear of the Milwaukee project in the 1960's? I'll sum it up for you. Children (newborns) were selected from a section of milwaukee where the pop. density was the highest, the average income was the lowest, and there was a high rate of unemployment. All of the children were selected from mothers with an IQ <80 (think your mother). Half of the children were kept in a similar environment, and half were placed in an environment where the mothers had received vocational training, life skills training, and parenting training. By age 6, the average IQ of the control group was 87. By age 6, the average IQ of the experimental group with the enriched environment was 120. But no, theres no effect of envrionment on IQ. Also, its funny how when poor black children are placed in white middle class homes, their IQ rises on average. They must only be selecting the smart black kids for the experiment, huh? Science is littered with thousands of experiment visibly demonstrating that environment has a HUGE effect on IQ. But then again, you have shown the tendency to ignore mainstream science in an attempt to push your facist, nazi agenda. Also, up until the 1950's, Blacks consistently scored lower than whites on US military IQ tests. Does this mean they were less intelligent? NO. It means that the blacks had a poorer education. When education standards were increased, blacks all of a sudden started scoring better. So all of a sudden, increasing education standards caused black itelligence genes to mutate making them smarter? Also, IQ is not a terribly good predictor of 'intelligence'. It is shaky at best. Just like the SAT is no predictor of college success. Standardized testing is simply that, standardized testing. IQ tests do not test spatial ability, nor do they test creativity and practical knowledge. IQ tests do not test memory. All of these ideas play a large role in intelligence. Why dont you explain autism to me? Autistic individuals score extremely low on IQ tests, yet are often highly intelligent. As for the so-called "decline of the gene pool", you've pulled that from the same place you;ve pulled all of your other so-called "knowledge"...your ass. I win, this arguement is over. You done an admirable job of demonstrating your incompetence in statistics and now genetics. Whats the next subject you'd care to get taken to school in? And you still havent explained why you advocate a eugenics program in which you would be the first person sterilized due to gross incompetence.

No i am not trying to discredit IQ tests. I am downplaying their role and relevance in determining "intelligence". Perhaps you need to brush on your reading comprehension as well as your statistics, and you definitely need to brush up a ton on your genetics. Your analogy is useless, because speed IS a measureable characteristic. It is not highly debated. There arent many scientists who debate that a 40 time isnt an accurate measure of speed. There arent scientists who are aruging that you cant realistically measure speed. They are however, arguing these points reagrading intelligence and IQ tests. Ask any sicentist (a real scientist, not a psychologist) and they'll tell you that while intelligence has a genetic component, it is highly dependent on environment. They'll also explain that using IQ as the basis for any intelligence determination is highly laughable, especially given the Nazi agenda you are trying to push here. You are trying to use IQ as though its a 100% foolproof method of somehow measuring this thing we call "intelligence". If you actually tried to present this case to a scientist, you'd be laughed out of the room, much like the last time you tried to talk to a woman. My God, you are an idiot.

Here was your asinine rejetion of darwinism, halfwayf down the page, f*ckstick.

So darwinism was bull sh-- in page 1 in your first post, but now its the letter of the law. Got it. Nice flip-flop herr kerry.

I dont agree with the "promise". It took away a lot of leverage. And its not like NC was going to holdout. Only an idiot would pass up 7+ mill guaranteed, and we'd still have his rights. At the very least, we should transition tag him, giving us the chance to match whatever offer he signs. Either way, if NC leaves (which i hope he doesnt), the only thing we are going to get out the deal is a possible compensatory pick in '08.

ok, do any of you realize, that even if we use the tag on nate, which we said we wouldnt, there are 0 teams that are going to fork over 2 first rounders for him. we'd either trade him for something less, or he'd come back for 1 year and leave next year.

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that holcombs arm is all about taking high skill level/smart people and selectively breeding, yet his favorite football player is the VERY DEFINITION of mediocre.

Which proves what? A person performs the same on one test that they perform on that test taken again another time? Guess what? theres a high correlation too if you take a person, have them add 2+2, and then take that same person, and have them add 2+2 again. How does the same person performing to the same level on the same test when taken again, say anything about that test's ability to predict the outside world. Oh yah, it doesnt, and you're wrong, like usual. Also, you cant selectively breed for intelligence. You can selectively breed for behaviors that can be associated with intelligence in animals, but you cant breed for intelligence itself. once again, you are advocating a program in which YOU would be the first in line to be sterilized.

1470 SAT, 2280 GRE (old format) and i still think standard tests are bull sh--. they test nothing more than your ability to take the test. you strike me as a person with high scores who is really dumb as hell in the real world (as you have displayed here). Everyone knows how you lack basic social intelligence, but you scream and yell and point to test scores as if they mean something.