02 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 262nd comment:
Cratylus said:
In real life the application of education, nutrition, and medicine to populations is actually a good thing that helps societies develop.
Sure, ignore the science, and start preaching the bio-egalitarian nonsense.
How long are we going to throw money at education, food programs, and health care, with ever diminishing returns, until people realize that it does not work?
02 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 263rd comment:
Scandum said:
Sure, ignore the science, and start preaching the bio-egalitarian nonsense.
How long are we going to throw money at education, food programs, and health care, with ever diminishing returns, until people realize that it does not work?
Cratylus said:
In real life the application of education, nutrition, and medicine to populations is actually a good thing that helps societies develop.
Sure, ignore the science, and start preaching the bio-egalitarian nonsense.
How long are we going to throw money at education, food programs, and health care, with ever diminishing returns, until people realize that it does not work?
OMG LOL
Let me get this straight. My statement, that you quoted, is incorrect?
AWESOME
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 264th comment:
02 Jul, 2009, aidil wrote in the 265th comment:
Scandum said:
Sure, ignore the science, and start preaching the bio-egalitarian nonsense.
Cratylus said:
In real life the application of education, nutrition, and medicine to populations is actually a good thing that helps societies develop.
Sure, ignore the science, and start preaching the bio-egalitarian nonsense.
Sir, you are so weird, you should be in movies.
02 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 266th comment:
What you basically suggest is to raise taxes and give everyone free education, food, and medicine, and then all problems will go away. It's been tried in Eastern Europe and it was a total disaster. Yet here you are, oblivious to reality.
02 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 267th comment:
Scandum said:
What you basically suggest is to raise taxes and give everyone free education, food, and medicine, and then all problems will go away. It's been tried in Eastern Europe and it was a total disaster. Yet here you are, oblivious to reality.
And your proposal is to do what, exactly?
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 268th comment:
That's not exactly what was tried in Eastern Europe, but, well, mmkay.
02 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 269th comment:
Cratylus said:
My guess is that by the time we make the breakthroughs required
to construct longterm living-meatbag containers to do the job of
colonizing space, we'll have the technology to ditch the meatbags.
to construct longterm living-meatbag containers to do the job of
colonizing space, we'll have the technology to ditch the meatbags.
See one of the last episodes of Babylon 5, set millions of years in the future when we've essentially become Vorlons. Once humans evolve beyond the need for meatspace bodies, our goals will shift from dominating the universe to creating or nurturing new life in it. There's really no other choice, unless you buy into the idea of overlapping realities.
EDIT: Oh, and grats to Crat for ending the 8-bit era, and David for starting the 16-bit era. :)
02 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 270th comment:
aidil said:
So, where exactly does it say that?
And for that matter, treatment of aboriginals has been rather bad in the past 1 century, and has been improving only very recently. If your statement is true, it argues for strong environmental impact on IQ.
Scandum said:
Some news related to the topic at hand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/...
Aboriginals have an average IQ below 70.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/...
Aboriginals have an average IQ below 70.
So, where exactly does it say that?
And for that matter, treatment of aboriginals has been rather bad in the past 1 century, and has been improving only very recently. If your statement is true, it argues for strong environmental impact on IQ.
It also argues that the IQ test is designed for people who live in a society that is rather similar to the one the people who developed the IQ test lived in. Perhaps the aboriginal people don't do well at things we consider intelligent, but I'd be amused to watch what happens when one of us smart people is dropped in the middle of the desert and has to survive there.
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 271st comment:
quixadhal said:
It also argues that the IQ test is designed for people who live in a society that is rather similar to the one the people who developed the IQ test lived in. Perhaps the aboriginal people don't do well at things we consider intelligent, but I'd be amused to watch what happens when one of us smart people is dropped in the middle of the desert and has to survive there.
I fully agree that the IQ test is hardly a perfect measure of "human intelligence", but I don't think that survival skills in given environments are necessarily correlated with intelligence. It's not as if every one of them figures everything out from scratch; it's a skill that is passed on.
02 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 272nd comment:
quixadhal said:
It also argues that the IQ test is designed for people who live in a society that is rather similar to the one the people who developed the IQ test lived in. Perhaps the aboriginal people don't do well at things we consider intelligent, but I'd be amused to watch what happens when one of us smart people is dropped in the middle of the desert and has to survive there.
http://www.egr.msu.edu/nsbe/images/las_v...
02 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 273rd comment:
I think that a cupla gangsters driving out in Nevada and creating a gambling oasis
is a bit different from the question asked. But you know, at this point, I think Scandum
has lost it. Not that he was really arguing in good faith to begin with.
He refuses to answer the question I posed him because he has no answer that
avoids making him look evil, or ignorant, or both.
I believe he is beaten.
-Crat
is a bit different from the question asked. But you know, at this point, I think Scandum
has lost it. Not that he was really arguing in good faith to begin with.
He refuses to answer the question I posed him because he has no answer that
avoids making him look evil, or ignorant, or both.
I believe he is beaten.
-Crat
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 274th comment:
We didn't need 273+ posts to know that though. :rolleyes:
02 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 275th comment:
David Haley said:
We didn't need 273+ posts to know that though. :rolleyes:
275 lol
02 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 276th comment:
David Haley said:
I fully agree that the IQ test is hardly a perfect measure of "human intelligence", but I don't think that survival skills in given environments are necessarily correlated with intelligence. It's not as if every one of them figures everything out from scratch; it's a skill that is passed on.
Sure, why does that make it invalid? In fact, I'd say starting from scratch is pretty moronic when you have perfectly good examples around you. Isn't that what we keep saying with respect to building a MUD?
02 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 277th comment:
Just saying that I'm not sure why the example of desert survival is relevant. You could have people who are far better at a given task than others while still being less intelligent, even far less intelligent.
02 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 278th comment:
David Haley said:
Just saying that I'm not sure why the example of desert survival is relevant. You could have people who are far better at a given task than others while still being less intelligent, even far less intelligent.
For example, there might be someone who is really good at trolling but actually is only average intelligence.
02 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 279th comment:
Runter said:
For example, there might be someone who is really good at trolling but actually is only average intelligence.
David Haley said:
Just saying that I'm not sure why the example of desert survival is relevant. You could have people who are far better at a given task than others while still being less intelligent, even far less intelligent.
For example, there might be someone who is really good at trolling but actually is only average intelligence.
so…much…meta…
02 Jul, 2009, aidil wrote in the 280th comment:
David Haley said:
Just saying that I'm not sure why the example of desert survival is relevant. You could have people who are far better at a given task than others while still being less intelligent, even far less intelligent.
Curiously enough, it is actually quite relevant.
The argument as to why East Asians supposedly are more intelligent then other 'races' is that during earlier stages of their development, especially the last ice age, their habitat was unreliable and hard to survive, which would have resulted in natural selection of those smart enough to survive.
Survival in the dessert has those same qualities, but somehow seems to result in the opposite, quite strange…
Random Picks
OHHHHHHH so THAT explains why so many people have trouble in math class: they're trying to add numbers where really they should be talking to each other.
Hmm. What does Godwin's law say about invoking it on yourself like that?