IQ has nothing to do with it. A person with a high IQ can act just as stupidly as someone with a low IQ. I will say this, if he does have a college education he is refusing to use it and is, in fact, actively engaged in opposing serious science (which I believe is stupid).
Capacitor posted his comment just after midnight last night. You’ve been asked quite a few serious questions since then (RickJay, Dogface, and Zoe in particular have all asked for supporting material and/or clarification) and this is what you chose to answer?
IMO natural selection means that individuals of a species who are “unfit” do not contribute genes (to any great extent) to the next generation. The presumption is that their fitness is determined by their genes, and that only those individuals with the “best” genes for the particular environmental conditions those organisms live under will reproduce, and thus the gene-pool for that species will become enriched with “good” genes.
Clearly, nowadays, most everybody gets a fair crack of the whip to pass on their genes, not just the “fittest”. Technical and medical advances have made age, infirmity, sexual persuasion and even infertility no real barrier to procreation. We also have the spectre of human cloning on the horizon.
Of course, whether natural selection does or does not still have some say on human evolution, is there anyway we can actually tell? Without waiting a few 100’s or 1000’s of generations, I mean?
Let me just add that these are only my opinions, and I am perfectly willing to give them up if they are shown to be nonsense.
I understand median IQ is always set to 100, but in absolute terms, intelligence would rise.
The American Psychological Association says you are wrong.
I am thinking that scientists set the international median to 100 and then compare each nation separately. But I am just speculating, I am not sure how people like Professor Richard Lynn arrived at their conclusions, but I trust them.
Breeds of dogs have more genetic variation within each breed than between them, this does not mean breeds don’t exist. I read that there is more genetic variation within a wolf and within a lassie than there is between a wolf and lassie, but no one would take a wolf home to their kids because they understand a wolf is different from a lassie, much more aggressive.
The only thing that matters is not how many genes are different, but WHICH genes are different, such as genes that code for intelligence and behavior. Here is some data supporting my claims: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tab.htm
I believe calling someone a Nazi is not valid argument but rather an insult.
Lynn’s research is backed by many others and indirectly by the APA. I believe his works are legit.
I enjoyed my time with you. Thank you for your input.
I don’t consider name-calling like “White Supremacist” a valid argument. Also, what is the definition of a “White Supremacist”? There is not objective definition, rather everyone defines it differently and out of emotion. But, does not a White Supremacist at least believe Whites are the greatest race and that non-Whites should be made slaves or killed off? Professor Rushton says Whites are only average and that East Asians are smarter and more moral than Whites, and he does not advocate slavery or genocide. I believe you already knew this and were intentionally being dishonest? I speculate though.
I have not seen any research debunking Rushton but rather only confirming his claims.
Define “fitness” in a biologically valid fashion. Here, I’ll give you a head-start by giving a measure of “fitness” as actually used by biologists:
To quantitatively measure fitness, count offspring of offspring. This is a valid and worldwide accepted definition of “fitness” among real biologists, as opposed to ignorant armchair speculators.
Prove it. Give citations of peer-reviewed PRIMARY scientific journals, not predigested pap specifically designed to appeal to the ignorant and dogmatic. Give me the real meat, not the pablum. I can take it. Walk the walk, cite the REAL science in the REAL journals.
I posted research from the American Psychological Association, are they peer-reviewed? But anyway, I believe, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has shown http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm that there is a political agenda in mainstream acadamia to stop legit research into human intelligence, esp. when dealing with race. As such, mainstream peer-reviewed which tend to be controlled by Marxists don’t do such research. Thus, independent scholars to the research, like Professor Rushton, Professor Lynn, Professor Brand, Professor Vanhanen, etc.
I don’t consider poorly thought out correlation = causation to be a valid argument, either. Answer me this: Have you taken a first year statistics course?
Again, answer me this: Why aren’t East Asian nations, obviously a bastion of superior intellect, morals, and ability, a veritbale utopia, instead of being torn by rebellion, repression, disease, famine, and tyrrany, not to mention being decades - in some cases, centuries - behind advancements of dumb people like Latin Americans?
Oh, I forgot to mention: They are also generally pretty poor, which contradicts your “poor people are dumb smart people are rich” argument rather nicely.
I mean, unless you really like taking vacations to the wonderlands of Vietnam, North Korea, and Cambodia.
That’s because no one takes him seriously. Do you also believe the research published about fake moon landings and alien anal probes?
OK, I literally fell to the floor laughing. If your career as a ethnic cleanser doesn’t work out, you should consider stand up comedy.
Oh, you want to be scientific? How about some cites that either mainstream peer-reviewed journals are Marxist, or that Marxists don’t do research. Take your pick on either one.
I agree, intelligence can be defined based on what one wants to accomplish. If for example, one values the ability and desire to lick one’s genitals clean, then cats are very intelligent. But, if one desires to succeed in a technologically advanced society, then the type of intelligence called “general intelligence” as measured by IQ tests is what is important and its the type of intelligence I value.
If environment can affect the biological correlates of IQ, no one has discovered them as yet. But then, why do identical twins reared apart have almost identical IQs? Tons of research have been done that debunk environment hypothesis and I have posted much of the research but it seems you don’t care to look at it, but that is your choice. In fact, Professor Plomin has already identified one gene affecting IQ. It’s only a matter of time when every gene is found.
Because no one has tried scientifically rearing identical twins apart in completely different countries, one with established educational systems and colleges, and one with famine and poverty? Because that is a pretty obvious conclusion?
Come on, you’re not thinking like much of a scientist.
Indentical twins rared apart are closer in IQ than fraternal twins rared together. This was shown for example in the highly publicized Minnesota Twins Study carried out by Professor Bouchard and I have already posted links to his research.
Since you like studies so much, how about a few that you likely missed in following your neofascist links… now, be careful! This one is from the Federal government, so it is probably a pack of lies from the Jewish Marxist NWO…
This is a simple VITAMIN test on REGUARLY NOURISHED Western kids. Do you have any comprehension of the effects this could have on kids in famine-plagued nations?
How does this speak for your 100% genetics 0% environment speech?
Or are you going to be “too busy” to answer any more questions today?
Maybe you should start measuring verbal IQ in addition to non-verbal. Are you even able to read? I said nothing about “twins in the same city with comparable diets and decent education.” In fact, I said quite the opposite.