Well, I said I’d never seen it, not that it had never happened. 
A moment ago you stated it was “absurd” that the WHO might change its size specifications. Do you even remember that?
This coming from somebody who was caught in a bald-faced lie just a few posts ago. You stated to be linking to the “actual” bidding document, when you were not. You linked to a document that was created years after Rushton’s book came out.
Cite?
No, I did not. I said:
The point was not that they would never consider changing sizes. The point was that they had not changed sizes without mentioning it. (I will not pretend that the point was absolutely clear, but an undocumented change is absurd.) As to lying? Not so much as your initial posts, so it seems to be something you can live with.
Are you kidding me? You said NOTHING about mentioning it, documenting the change, or anything like that. You said it was absurd that they would change their size requirements. That’s what you said. You were wrong.
lololol
Cite?
You keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means.
In this case, I am asking somebody to show me where I supposedly lied.
Well, as it happens I don’t think you lied. I think you actually believe the garbage you’ve been spewing, possibly due to one of those sub-60 IQs that you seem to think could be the average of an entire country. However, in that case you should have asked somebody to show you where you supposedly lied, not asked for a citation. Asking for a citation is asking for a reference to a (presumably) authoritative source, not asking for a general demonstration of the truth of the point being made. You have confused the two throughout the three threads this discussion can be found in.
Whatever. tomndebb, I am asking you to show me where I supposedly lied.
Either you are aware that the Wiki citation to which you initially linked in two threads actually refutes the claims you made about it (making your claims lies) or you are too stupid to recognize the fact. It seems of little difference to me.
Which claims and which parts of the Wiki citation?
lskinner The problem with your cite of the wiki piece on IQ, is that within the citation there is overwhelming evidence that the authors cooked their numbers and the publication wasn’t peer reviewed; that’s always going to be a red-flag.
The thing about the Dope is that for better or worst, lots of people here are pretty bright and like to look at cites closely. When you use a cite to make a point, while at the same time the cite itself questions the conclusions you ascribe to it; you have a problem.
You can either defend the cite and explain why we should ignore the other parts of it; or you can do what you’ve been doing. What I find ironic, is that Tomndeb actually asked another poster to back off and give you a chance to support your position. Which you haven’t done.
From your cite:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IQ
That’s not good science and certainly not a cite to support your position that Africans, that entire nations in Africa have the IQ equal to the ‘mildly’ retarded; using this book as ‘proof’.
Is there a book that says the IQ and Wealth are related? Yes. But that’s not what you’re being asked to provide. What you’re being asked to do, is show why we should ignore how they came up with those results, as well as the counter-argument to those results themselves.
You of course don’t have to do that…but I think you’ll enjoy your experience more if you at least try.
YMMV, of course.
Bwahahahahaha, lskinner You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia,
only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line,
but even less well-known (except around here) is this: never get into a cite war with tomndebb! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha!
Once, in 1960, Chuck Norris tried to round house kick tomndebb in the head for 20 minutes, tnd merely pointed out that the kick was neither round, or house-like, and Chuck disappeared in a puff of logic!
CMC fnord!
lskinner, may I ask you a question? Why do the possibility that the two statements ianzin made may be false bother you so much?
I’m a member of Mensa, and have been for the past several years. While Mensa is a self-selected group and thus not necessarily representative of people with high IQs as a whole, I can offer up some observations based on experience. Our membership includes everyone from high school dropouts to people with more than one doctorate. In terms of economic success, we also run the full gamut from people who are unemployed or minimally employed, to people who are highly successful. I’ve heard similar comments to ianzin’s several time. Indeed, I was at a business meeting on Saturday and I brought ianzin’s comments up and there was general agreement with them.
ianzin’s statements seem to have upset you a great deal, but I can’t fathom why. I gather you believe that’s not true, but that doesn’t jibe with my own experience or observation. Can you honestly say it does with yours?
Respectfully,
CJ
Cite?
<<Mellivora ducks, but does not run, IQ not high enough to multi-task>>
Here I am again… the lskinner’s favourite ‘ignorant fool’! I have the perfect antidote to this thread.
Take a look at this thread and in particular this very funny response, and then imagine someone challenging Roger Thornhill to provide a cite to back up his assertion!
That’s what the endless and pointless round of ‘cite’ challenges looks like to the rest of us.
I notice in passing that, at the time of writing, lskinner has not deigned to respond to what I wrote in the original thread which spawned this (very tedious) one. I guess that’ll be because I’m an ignorant fool. Yep. Name-calling is a pretty sure sign that someone has a superior intellect and a better argument.
CMC fnord!
You’re an ignorant fool to the extent that you base your view on your own feelings and biases and ignore evidence to the contrary. Even tomndebb admitted that there is a “loose correlation between IQ scores and material or academic success in societies that are highly dependant on literacy” It’s one thing if your teachers all told you something and you accepted it without a lot of thought. But if you are presented with evidence that those people were wrong, it should cause you to question and possibly revise your beliefs. Which you may have done, I’m not sure.
Which claims and which parts of the Wiki citation?
You really don’t have a clue how minimal this highly qualified statement is, do you? It’s saying that in societies where taking tests is important, there’s a loose correlation between how well people do taking one type of test and how well they do taking another, vaguely similar type of test. This correlation has virtually nothing to do with innate intelligence. It certainly doesn’t demonstrate that how well other people, from societies where test-taking isn’t important, perform on tests has any significance, which is what would be required for you to have the possibility of the beginnings of a seed of truth buried somewhere inside the point you’ve been trying to make.
My apologies for the tortured grammar in that sentence, but I’m too lazy to reformulate it.
Lskinner, let me ask you with respect to your opinions on the issue. It’s quite evident that there is a measurable correlation between measured IQ and academic success, and to a lesser but still significant extent, professional success, in more technically advanced nations.
Having said this do you believe that significant, innate (ie genetically determined) differences in mental capacity and intellectual ability exist between black, white and asian populations (to the extent they can be differentiated) that are not a function of the economic and cultural environment, but are genetically determined?