Orton's Arm

There are two flaws in the logic of your above post. 1) Ramius has never, on these boards, expressed "copious knowledge" about anything. Ever. You're assuming he has "copious knowledge" based on his job title--exactly what you accuse Weiss of doing in his study. Except that Weiss was smart enough to see that there's error involved in drawing a correlation between someone's job title and their intelligence level, and he made allowances for this error. 2) I stated that you've demonstrated your abilities to the point where we know you're smart. In light of this, your statement that "[Ramius] couldn't demonstrate his ability to [my] satisfaction" is incorrect. The bottom line here is that, on these boards, Ramius hasn't even tried to demonstrate a deep understanding of anything. Ever. You're asking me to assume he has this ability, despite the fact that he's not once demonstrated it. Not once. You're welcome to assume whatever you want to about Ramius's supposed intellectual gifts. I require hard evidence.

Had I merely said that you didn't demonstrate your ability on the eugenics thread, you'd have an excuse to turn this into a misguided attack on me or my ideas. I'm saying that you've not demonstrated your ability on these boards ever. Not in response to me. Not in response to anyone. Ever. This is why I see you as a Yorkshire terrier in a pitbull's clothing.

The fact that there's not a single correct statement in your above post makes me question my decision to say all those nice things about you. The fact that Ramius does this for a living doesn't prove as much as you seem to think it does. I've worked with people who do statistics for a living, and it's a mixed bag. I wasn't taking issue merely with the fact that Ramius didn't show anything special in the eugenics thread. I have yet to see him post anything at all, in any thread at all, which would make me say, "Gosh, nobody but a very smart person could have posted something like this." Not once. Not ever. Until he starts doing that, he doesn't get to act like a pit bull.

Had you done anything at all to demonstrate your own level of intelligence, your insult would carry some credibility. Take Bungee Jumper for example. Like yourself, he's not above handing out insults to those with whom he disagrees. In fact, 95% of the time he expresses his disagreement with a one or two line put-down of some sort. It's the 5% of the time that separates him from you. Because when he actually defends his point of view in depth, he clearly separates himself from the rest of the pack. No, he's not always right. There are times when he's overconfident, or overly stubborn, or too wedded to a particular point of view. But he's shown enough to demonstrate that, if an occassional mistake is made, it's at least the error of someone who's intelligent and well-informed. You're clearly imitating Bungee Jumper's penchant for expressing your point of view through cutting put-downs. But unlike him, you've done little or nothing to demonstrate your own ability to understand or articulate complex concepts. This is why you're a Yorkshire terrier who thinks he's a pit bull.

You're a Yorkshire terrier that thinks he's a pit bull.

Well, um, actually, the world doesn't need people to pump gas, because now it's self-serve and pay at the pump. Automation generally reduces the need for stupid people, while increasing the need for smart people. But perhaps you envisioned stupid people pumping gas so that if the gas station got blown up, they'd be taken with it.

I see you've lived in DC long enough to learn how to dodge questions! If you believed that stupid parents were disproportionately likely to have stupid children, would you favor trying to cut back on the number of children stupid people have?

Suppose you became convinced that it was possible to drastically reduce or eliminate the genetic propensity for stupidity. Would you feel doing so would be desirable?

I'm glad someone around here got what I was trying to say. I'll agree with the qualification raised by Dibs, in that a QB can look artificially good for his first few starts, because nobody has any film on him. Rob Johnson's start for Jacksonville is the textbook example of this. Time will tell if the same could also be said for Losman's first few games in the Fairchild offense.

More to the point, how much do you actually know? Are you actually trying to say that most East German scientists and engineers were ignorant party hacks? Um, okay, maybe that was what you were trying to say. I'll put this as gently as possible, and tell you this isn't exactly one of your stronger objections. You'd think that after the Soviets put Sputnik in orbit most people would realize that even if their system couldn't do anything else, it could at least identify talented scientists and engineers. Weiss did what he did because there was really good data available: These scores were winnowed to find the 1329 students who demonstrated the highest level of aptitude in math. That's a lot of data. Of course, nobody can stop you from throwing it all aside if it doesn't confirm your preconceptions of how the world works. Nor can anyone stop you from characterizing Weiss as "the quintessential example of a really, really stupid scientist." Let's look at some of Weiss's writing, shall we: Yes, Weiss's stupidity is almost palpable. It oozes and drips off the page. Or maybe that was my sarcasm. For you to characterize Weiss as "really, really stupid" detracts from the credibility of your other objections. It makes it seem as though you're unwilling to believe that anyone with whom you disagree could possibly have a working brain cell.

I'm a little disturbed by the fact that you consider my idea of childbearing incentives to be more of a fantasy than your idea of simply blowing up stupid people. If you have such contempt for stupid people, why don't you want them bred out of the gene pool?

If you're trying to say that the Soviets did favors for inner party members and their kids, you'd be right. But if you're saying that the ranks of East German engineers and scientists consisted mostly of stupid party members, you'd be wrong. The latter point is far more relevant to the interpretation of the Weiss data than the former.

Earlier, I addressed the following remark to you: Since I wrote that, you've made zero attempt to communicate a scientific basis for any of your objections, yet have indulged in plenty of personal invective.

You, sir, are a man of contradictions. On the one hand, your posts here suggest that you would feel neutral or positive about stupid people getting blown up. But elsewhere, when I suggested the more moderate and humane idea of merely using economic incentives to discourage stupid people from having children, you responded with a fair amount of hostility. Go figure.

In pre-WWI Germany, your economic opportunities were largely determined by whether you were born into Germany's aristocracy; or into some other wealthy group. The Soviets made it a point to avoid showing favoritism toward aristocrats or others born into high economic status. Career choice is a better indicator of intelligence in East Germany than it would have been in old Imperial Germany. I'm not trying to argue that a state-run system like East Germany's had any Bill Gates stories.

An excellent post. Yes, the Bills have problems on offense that go beyond the QB. But a good QB can still make a difference. Last night, the Cowboys' line couldn't block anyone. Yet their offense came to life when Romo was inserted instead of Drew. If you take away Romo's three boneheaded interceptions, it would have been a magnificent performance. Even when the supporting cast plays poorly, you can still tell the difference between good and bad QB play.

It appears you missed the part of the article which had this to say: For the purposes of this study, a "gifted child" was defined as one of the 1329 people who did exceptionally well on the standardized math test. While the author admits this definition is narrow (not all gifted children are necessarily good at math), he feels that all children who are very good at math are gifted. He presents evidence with which to back up this conclusion. The I.Q.s of parents were estimated by occupational, educational, and other data obtained from questionnaires. Weiss acknowledges that his system of measuring parents' I.Q. is imperfect, and points out that this imperfection will lead to the appearance of a lower correlation between parent/child I.Q.s than is actually the case. But even with some of the correlation being masked by measurement error, you still have the very striking results I mentioned from table 2. If you have a specific objection to Mendel's theories that's relevant to this discussion, I encourage you to present it. Or perhaps you have in mind an alternative genetic theory; one which would undermine the basis for a eugenics program. If so, please present that. What makes the study interesting is that it's based on data from East Germany. While I detest Soviet rule in general, one of the things they did well was to wipe out inequalities of opportunity based on economic caste. In the U.S., for instance, admission to schools such as Harvard is largely based on whether your parents are graduates (read: privilege). Given the equalization of opportunity that occurred in Germany due to the devastation of WWII and the Soviet occupation, it's reasonable to conclude that choice of occupation is strongly associated with intelligence level. The origins of the Indian caste system have been lost in the mists of time. The Puranas describes Lord Brahma creating some humans from his mouth, others from his arms, others from his abdomen, and still others from his feet. These people became grouped into different castes. While the origins of the caste system are murky at best, it is clear that today caste is a fixed concept. No matter how smart you are, you can't move up to a higher caste. Nor is there an effort to push less intelligent people into lower castes. According to Weiss, the reason an intelligence-based caste system has not appeared is because, "A broad middle-class, marrying up and down and among themselves, connects the social extremes." Weiss merely discussed I.Q. similiarities between Caucasoids in Europe and America, and Mogoloids in East Asia. He didn't mention American Indians. His explanation for why East Asian Mogoloid I.Q.s and Caucasoid I.Q.s are similar is a reasonable one, and is consistent with his theory that I.Q. is largely determined by the M1/M2 alleles. If 40% - 80% of a person's intelligence is determined by genetics, that still leaves a substantial percentage to be explained by the environment. Let's think about this. One ruling elite might feel compelled to surpress the intellectual and genetic potential of the people, because the elite sees these things as a threat. Another ruling elite might decide to do what it can to enhance such potential. In the long term, and all else being equal, the nation led by the second ruling elite will achieve far greater things than the nation led by the first. A ruling elite should not be allowed to undertake actions helpful to itself, but deeply harmful to the nation as a whole. In any case, as we make the transition to a more technologically-oriented, information-based economy, the need for smart people will increase.

Why do people keep saying Merz is going to get all this playing time? From what I've read, the Bills' starting OL lineup will be: Peters Gandy Fowler Villarrial Pennington I know Merz is getting a little time due to injuries, but I haven't read anything which would suggest that the plan is for him to be on the field when all five starters are healthy.

I'd argue that the coaching staff knows that Gandy will never be a good LT, and Reyes will never be good at any OL position. On the other hand, a player like Peters has the potential to be a good LT; and there's a chance Pennington will become a good RT. This is a move about getting the players with the most upside onto the field, so that we can figure out what we do or don't need this coming offseason.

I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the article. One of its main premises is that intelligence is largely determined by whether you have the M1 or M2 genetic allele. He illustrates this point in the following paragraph: M1, the allele associated with high intelligence, shows up with 20% frequency, while M2 appears with 80% frequency. This reinforces my earlier point that a eugenics program would increase genetic diversity. The last time you and I had a discussion about eugenics, you brought up regression toward the mean. The article had this to say about that subject:

You seem like a well-informed poster, but there's massive scientific support for the concept that intelligence is passed from one generation to the next. You appear to be comparing this concept to Creationism, which is either very misleading or deeply partisan. To which "overwhelming evidence" are you referring? Most of those who've disagreed with me have done so using emotion-laden terms such as "Nazi," "idiot," etc. Few people have attempted to back their emotions up with actual facts. Even Bungee Jumper, who has generally produced the most cerebral posts arguing the case against eugenics, will say something like "you don't understand correlation" without showing how a correct understanding would undermine the case for eugenics. His Monte Carlo simulation would have been a more definitive attack, but apparently it didn't produce the results he'd expected. Your statement that I've been "presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary" is a complete departure from reality. Research into intelligence is a controversial issue. Consider the statement with 52 signatories, to which I alluded earlier. There were those who agreed with its statements, yet were too fearful of career consequences to actually sign it. But even in the deeply politicized environment that's been created, there were 52 people brave enough to sign a document which stated, among other things, that 40 - 80% of the variation in people's intelligence levels is driven by differences in genetics. The genetic component of intelligence is mainstream science. The concept that genetically driven traits are passed from one generation to the next is mainstream science. Your use of the word "pseudoscience" to describe either or both of these phenomena smacks of desperation or of partisanship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your views are similar to those of Stephen Jay Gould. Intelligence is, however, a trait that widely differs among different breeds of dogs, and to some degree among breeds of cats. Selective breeding has worked in creating intelligence differences in animals, so the burden of proof is on you to show why it wouldn't work for humans. Very high intelligence is a rare trait, which a successful eugenics program would increase. By increasing the frequency of rare and desirable traits, you're increasing the diversity of the gene pool. But, you say, you're increasing genetic diversity along one dimension, while perhaps reducing it along others. If most smart people were, say, inbred rednecks from one particular spot in Appalachia, this concern would be valid. In fact, smart people come from a wide variety of backgrounds. I see no genetic benefit, either from a genetic diversity standpoint or for any other reason, for smart people to have fewer children than everyone else. Yet such is currently the case. You suggest that selectively breeding for intelligence could lead to any number of unknown consequences, including getting the opposite results to which I intended. But far from supporting such fears, research into the field of human intelligence has demolished the basis for them. Consider table 2 from the following paper: The article itself does a very good job of discussing the genetic component of intelligence. It was published in "Personality and Individual Differences."

That's a very good question. He played half a football game. Multiply his stats by two, and you've got a guy on pace for 450 yards, 4 TDs, and 6 INTs. He looked like a guy who was on pace for all these things. At this point, Parcells has to realize he's not going anywhere with Bledsoe as his quarterback. There's a chance Romo could do something, if he could just cut back those INTs and other brain dead mistakes. I think they have to play him a few weeks to see if he has "it."

I'd pick the best player available, excluding defensive backs, WRs, or RBs. Especially RBs. My preference would be a QB first, a LT second, some other OL position third, and a defensive front seven player fourth. But I'd be willing to make an exception to all of this if I thought a specific player had a much better chance of greatness than the other choices. If the next Jerry Rice or Barry Sanders is on the board, you take him.

If memory serves, Bledsoe looked quite mediocre in New England when Charlie Weis was his coordinator. Part of the reason Brady was such an improvement was that Bledsoe had left plenty of room in which to improve. In addition to looking mediocre under Weiss, Bledsoe has looked mediocre in all but the first 8 games of Gilbride, and again under Clements. Other than his first 8 games in Dallas, he's looked mediocre or worse there too. Between Weiss, Gilbride, Clements, and that Dallas guy, you're looking at four offensive coordinators. At some point, you have to realize it's unlikely Bledsoe had a string of four bad offensive coordinators, and that a big part of the problem may be him. With that said, Dallas's offensive line got manhandled by the Giants tonight. Tony Romo did a much better job of making lemonaide out of lemons than Bledsoe did. On the other hand, Romo made a number of costly and foolish mistakes. But 80% of the time, he had a commanding presence at QB. I mean, you just felt he'd find some way to will his team down the field. If I'm Parcells, I'd start Romo.

I keep hearing the Drew Brees comparison with reference to Losman. But Drew Brees is just one guy. Let's look at the big picture: - Some players show something their rookie years, such as Ben Roethlisberger. - Other players show something their second years, such as Peyton Manning. - Other players sit on the bench a while, but do well upon being thrown in: Chad Pennington, Carson Palmer, etc. - A few players such as Drew Brees take a long time for the light to finally come on. - For many players, it never does. I compare this situation to leaving a message on a woman's answering machine. Maybe she returns the call the next day. Or maybe she's busy or out of town, and waits a few days to call you back. But if she goes a week or ten days without calling you back, it's fairly safe to assume she's not going to call you back at all. And the longer we go without seeing anything from Losman, the less likely it is that he'll ever become the player TD had hoped for.