I have found quotes indicating that most mentally retarded people can work. Do you dispute them or not?
Here’s what you said before:
So it sounds like you are saying that mentally retarded people would fail to take part in agriculture and people who are not mentally retarded would be too busy taking care of the mentally retarded people to conduct agriculture.
If the quotes I found are correct, then you are clearly wrong since many mentally retarded people could take part in planting and harvesting of crops, albeit with close supervision.
So please answer my question: Do you dispute the quotes or not? It’s a simple yes or no question.
I’m seriously skeptical of your claim that most mentally disabled people are supervised at home. Please show me proof.
Does that mean yes or no? Simple question.
Which they are – you’ve already admitted that very low average IQ would result in poor agriculture and poor commerce. And indeed, agriculture and commerce seem to be pretty poor in sub-Saharan Africa.
Please show me where I made such an argument. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such argument and apologize.
(My actual argument is that simple observation of sub-Saharan Africa results in observation of such things as poor commerce and poor agriculture. Which means that one cannot rule out the possibility of very low average IQ on the basis of simple observation.)
I have never disputed this – it’s not the issue.
Absolutely. And my observations are also consistent with objective tests.
I don’t know. If you are skeptical of the cites I have provided and calculation I have done, you are free to look up your own.
More than half of Americans have IQs between 85 and 115, agreed?
I have no answer . . . I’m not the one who is making an argument which hinges on the word “typical.”
And again you are missing the point. Simple observation of sub-Saharan Africa yields observations which are consistent with very low average IQ. Therefore simple observation is insufficient to reject the claim that there is very low average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa.
Putting aside CP’s response (which is basically correct), would you mind providing me with a genetic definition of the Pima? I’m skeptical that one exists.
About that close supervision, which we seem to agree is necessary…who, exactly, is performing it? Africa isn’t, to my knowledge, dominated by massive corporate-owned farms like the U.S., but rather small family plots. In Rwanda, for instance:
Does each plot happen to have a non-disabled person in charge of it, or what? Who is organizing all this?
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I’m seriously skeptical of your claim that most mentally disabled people are supervised at home. Please show me proof.
[/quote]
Bolding mine. And that leaves out those who are more than mildly retarded, and are not capable of living independently.
Yes, some of them can become fairly self sufficient. Just what the cite says.
Either you’re being obtuse, or I’m not getting my point across. Yes, very low average IQ would result in poor agricultural and commercial performance, but it would be poor performance with specific characteristics. For example, returning again to the small family plots that make up Rwandan agriculture. If the average Rwandan was incapable of working his farm without the close supervision of someone with a higher IQ, it stands to reason that many, many farm plots would have to do without this supervision. There’s no organization assigning supervisors, and with such a low average IQ, there’d be many, many families without a high-IQ son to act as supervisor. Therefore, you’d see plots becoming less productive and even ceasing to be farm plots altogether, as they were mismanaged, neglected, overgrown, etc. But that’s not happening, production is steadily increasing every year.
Commerce would be the same way: once a business fell into the hands of someone with an IQ under 70, it would cease to be productive, in a sort of dystopian spiral. Here’s Rwanda’ GDP growth. It’s positive.
GINI coefficient data would also be useful here, as evidence for or against the sort of extreme stratification that would result from only half (at best) the population being physically capable of the skills needed to become well-off (not slam-dunk evidence, though, because other factors can cause inequality). Sadly, the data on African nations is largely non-existent.
That’s pretty rich coming from you, but “=” meant “is evidence of”, which you’ve plainly stated:
That should have been apparent, since the line you quoted was in reference to my efforts to point to potential evidence for and characteristics of a society with a low average IQ, and you failing to address it. Which you’ve again done, in fact.
Well, you could observe other things, such as the one’s I’ve noted, or observe the ways in which the commerce and agriculture were dysfunctional. Why won’t you respond to these arguments?
It is, in that observation must extend to causes, and not just effects. And the causes can be observed.
I don’t want any hijacks, so I’ll leave that one alone.
That too, I shouldn’t have brought that up, as it’s a hijack. Mea culpa.
Agreed.
Am I? My argument was that observation would betray the fact that Africans have average IQs above 70. That would make them typical humans, yes, but my argument in no way hinges on the word “typical”, let alone the sort of linguistic wringing-out you’re engaged in.
Again, only if the observation was incredibly shallow and limited.
1-50%, give or take.
What can be observed that would distinguish between a society that was dysfunctional because of ideology, and one that was dysfunctional due to widespread mental retardation?
That’s not an answer to my question. I asked you about quotes which I provided. You are evading my simple, reasonable question designed to elicit your position.
Other people. Besides which, that’s not what you said before. Before, you claimed that mentally retarded people simply would not perform their assigned work. You are weaseling.
I would imagine that some do and some don’t. In any case, the people probably do a lousy job. Which may be part of the reason for Africa’s relatively low agricultural outfit.
Residing with one’s parents does not necessarily entail supervision. And “largest group” does not necessarily mean most.
No, that’s not what the cite says. It says “they can become fairly self-sufficient” without the phrase “some of them.”
You are misrepresenting your own cite.
That’s not a reasonable interpretation of “=.” Evidence is not proof. Anyway, I’m not going to delve into your post any further.
You are evading reasonable questions designed to elicit your position; you are misrepresenting your own cites; you are weaseling; and you are basically strawmanning me to boot.
You asked a yes-or-or question. The first word of my reply was “no”. That’s not evading a question. This is the debate equivalent of the Four Corners, brazil.
Who? Family members? Other members of the community? UN workers? This goes to that social-structure argument that you completely ignored.
I said "crops would fail, as the people assigned to plant and harvest them failed to do so. "
I allowed that under close supervision, as opposed to mere assignment or their own initiative, the mildly retarded could do it, but that brings up all the issues of close supervision.
That ain’t weaseling.
Is that the reason? Upon visiting Africa, would one observe a large number of basically unproductive farms, where the farmer doesn’t have the IQ to handle it? Again, these are observable characteristics. Simple observation means much more than the literacy rate, total agricultural output, and total commerce.
Or, it does entail supervision, and the largest might be a majority. Then there’s the non-mildly retarded. I’m not overly worried about it, it’s not even a claim I made. I said that the mentally disabled are supervised at home, not that it was to a man or even a majority, though it likely is.
Wow, that is just shameful. You questioned my phrase, I clarified that I meant exactly what you wrote. I answered every question; the cite contains exactly what I said it did; I didn’t weasel, the difference from one phrase to the next was clear, and both were supported by the cite. I didn’t strawman you, despite two hysterical accusations.
I feel rather confident that the reason you’re not going to delve any further is because you’ve got no counter-argument. Given multiple opportunities to respond to my arguments, rather than minutia or nonsensical accusations, you rather pointedly did not. You’ve got nothin’.
You all have been going back and forth and not truly getting anywhere for days. And now we’ve got dueling posters claiming little is going to be accomplished.