- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/2/25 at 1:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This conversation has gone so far off course that I don’t even know what we’re debating anymore.
You are only arguing with yourself most of the time because all the men stopped listening to your inane yammering long ago.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:12 pm to Zach
quote:
Blacks have fast twitch muscle which makes them faster runners. It has nothing to do with breeding or training. It's totally genetic.
So firstly intelligence is far more complex, secondly fast twitch muscles reduces overall endurance which leads to Ethiopian runners who do not have the fast twitch ratio that west Africans have are better at distance.
But yes, we arent debating genetics, but the actual effect of genetics on IQ on huge populations.
We know some genes improve memory, but until we have a full DNA to intelligence potential model we just cant say one "race" has a higher intelligence potential.
Plus how much matters will depend on how big of a gap it is considering the affect of nutrition and stimulation.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:16 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I didn’t interpret his post but I missed his post saying he didn’t mean what he wrote
God you're a fricking dishonest count
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:18 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This conversation has gone so far off course that I don’t even know what we’re debating anymore.
What you've done is what you do in every thread. You lied about what somebody said. Then continued through the rest of the thread pretending your lie was true but of course never quoting the actual words that supposedly match your lie. Because you're a count
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:33 pm to Narax
quote:
So firstly intelligence is far more complex
No, it's not. Intelligence is capacity. Like a bucket. Knowledge is extremely complex. It's what is in the bucket.
If you are born with an IQ of 70 they could start your medical training at age 5 and you would never be a surgeon. Your capacity is limited at birth.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:38 pm to Zach
quote:
No, it's not. Intelligence is capacity.
Cite your sources.
quote:
If you are born with an IQ of 70 they could start your medical training at age 5 and you would never be a surgeon. Your capacity is limited at birth.
There is a baseline of a working brain without one of the ceiling lowering limits I described in a number of posts.
Beyond that you are going to have to source why you think a doctorate is unachieveable by anyone with a working brain.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:57 pm to Narax
quote:
Cite your sources.
Bell Curve.
You are considering the word 'intelligence' as 'lots of learning'. So, if a guy has a 110 IQ and works hard in college and grad school continues to read a lot of stuff people will say, 'Bob is very intelligent.'
That simply means that he has filled his bucket to the top. If Tarzan has an IQ of 150 and then raised by monkeys after the plane crash then his bucket is near empty when he returns to England and people think he's stupid. His capacity to learn is still set at birth.
quote:
Beyond that you are going to have to source why you think a doctorate is unachieveable by anyone with a working brain.
If you want to have surgery with a doctor with an IQ of 70:
a. Good luck finding one.
b. Make out a last will first.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 3:03 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
You lied about what somebody said.
Can you please quote what the OP said and then quote me quoting it to show me the lie. Thanks.
OP said something. I took issue with what he said. Then he said “what I actually MEANT was not what I said.” And you’re calling me a liar.
Edit: oh. I didn’t realize I replied to one of your posts. My mistake.
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 3:05 pm to Zach
quote:
Bell Curve
Wow, ok.
Have you read the bell curve?
Which page says exactly that.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 3:23 pm to Narax
quote:
Wow, ok. Have you read the bell curve? Which page says exactly that.
I read it when it came out. It's right here in the office/library of my home where I have my computer.
I just grabbed it after writing that last sentence.
Hmmm, page 593, second paragraph: "Our use of the NLSY extends through the 1990 survey year."
There, that took 10 seconds of my time. To find the material you want in this huge book would take me a lot more time than that. I would do it if I gave a shite what you believe. I don't.
I jockey between this place and the other 70+ sites that I check every day on a huge variety of subjects.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 3:39 pm to Zach
quote:
Hmmm, page 593, second paragraph: "Our use of the NLSY extends through the 1990 survey year."
quote:
Technical Issues Regarding the
National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth
This appendix provides details about the variables used in the text and
about other technical issues associated with the NLSY.' Colleagues who
wish to recreate analyses will need additional information, which may
be obtained from the authors.'
SURVEY YEAR, CONSTANT DOLLARS, A N D SAMPLE WEIGHTS
Our use of the NLSY extends through the 1990 survey year.'31
All dollar figures are expressed in 1990 dollars, using the consumer
price index inflators as reported in the 1992 edition of StatisticalAbstract
of the United States, Table 737.
Sample weights were employed in all analyses in the main text. We
do not so note in each instance, to simplify the description. In com-
puting scores that were based on the 11,878 subjects who had valid
scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), we used the
sampling weights specifically assigned for the AFQT population. For
analyses based on the NLSY subjects' status as of a given year (usually
1990), we used the sampling weights for that survey year. For analyses
in which the children of NLSY women were the unit of analysis, the
child's sampling weights were used rather than the mother's.
To make interpretation of the statistical significance easier, we repli-
cated all the analyses in Part I1 using just the unweighted cross-sectional
sample of whites, as reported in Appendix 4.
...
So it's your general impression it said that.
quote:
There, that took 10 seconds of my time. To find the material you want in this huge book would take me a lot more time than that. I would do it if I gave a shite what you believe. I don't.
I jockey between this place and the other 70+ sites that I check every day on a huge variety of subjects.
Yup, your general impression.
It's a very intriguing book, and he's written a lot more since then.
The section on low birth weights is fascinating.
quote:
Low-Birth-Weight Babies
Low birth weight, defined as infants weighing less than 5.5 pounds at
birth, is predictive of many subsequent difficulties in the physical, social,
and cognitive development of children. Historically, blacks have had much
higher rates of low birth weight than either Latinos or whites.
In the most recent reporting year (1991) for national data, almost four-
teen percent of all black babies were low birth weight, compared to five
percent of white babies and six percent of Latino babies.In our analy-
ses of the NLSY data, we focus on babies who were low birth weight rel-
ative to the length of gestation, excluding premature babies who were
less than 5.5 pounds but were appropriate for gestational age using the
standard pediatric definition." Using unr-ounded data, the rate of low-
birth-weight births for blacks (10 percent) was 2.9 times as high as for
whites. The Latino rate was 1.5 times the white rate. The figure shows
what happens after controlling for IQ. T h e black rate, given an IQ of
100, drops from 10 percent to 6 percent, substantially closing the gap
with whites.13"l The Latino-white gap remains effectively unchanged.
This indicates that low IQ women are likely to have medically critical low birth weight babies.
What is a top destroyer of future intelligence.
ETA: It's really a self fulfilling cycle, low IQ Parents produce children who's brains were starved which makes them IQ damaged, they then make starved brain babies...
Yup
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 3:40 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Can you please quote what the OP said and then quote me quoting it to show me the lie. Thanks.
Look at your lying arse shite self. That's cute. You're going to refuse to quote supporting your assertion and then try to wrote me into running in circles with you? Yeah I've seen your act. If other people are stupid enough to chase you in circles that's fine but I'll just call you a count and be done with it because that's all it's really necessary
Posted on 8/2/25 at 4:36 pm to Narax
quote:
So it's your general impression it said that.
God, you're dense as hell. I didn't make a general impression on the quote. I showed you that I have the book here. And that I don't want to look up any stuff in it because I don't give a shite what you think.
quote:
It's a very intriguing book, and he's written a lot more since then.
"He?" You don't even know the book had two authors and the primary researching author is dead.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 4:46 pm to Zach
quote:
God, you're dense as hell. I didn't make a general impression on the quote. I showed you that I have the book here. And that I don't want to look up any stuff in it because I don't give a shite what you think.
So you don't care... but you replied...
quote:
"He?" You don't even know the book had two authors and the primary researching author is dead.
Yes that's why I said he has written much more, Herrnstein died the year it came out.
Charles Murray who is the only author who outlived the book's first year is the only one I would be referencing...
I'm surprised you took time off from your web trawling to bring that, but didn't care to back up your claims...
Especially since you don't care what I think...
Weird yo..
Since you don't want to I can go into it since I have the ebook, and it is fascinating data that can add to this conversation.
quote:
Another approach to the impact of nutrition on cognitive ability is
to see whether enriched diets can raise scores. A breakthrough study
done in Great Britain in the late 1980s concluded that the answer was
yes.5 David Benton and Gwilym Roberts gave a sample of thirty Welsh
12- to 13-year-old children vitamin and mineral supplements for eight
months and compared their test scores with an equal number of their
schoolmates getting nonnutritive placebos. The Welsh children were
not known to be malnourished, but those getting the supplement gained
eight points more in their nonverbal intelligence test scores than those
getting the placebo, a large and statistically significant improvement.
Verbal scores showed n o differential improvement.
quote:
A recent American confirmation of the Welsh results gave over 600
eighth and tenth graders in several California schools daily pills for thir-
teen weeks.7 The pills contained either half the recommended daily al-
lowances (RDA) of a wide assortment of vitamins and minerals,
precisely the RDA, twice the RDA, or a placebo. The vitamin and min-
eral supplement raised scores on most of the nonverbal subtests of a stan-
dard intelligence test.''' The verbal intelligence test scores again failed
to register any benefit, but that is consistent with the Flynn effect: The
rising average intelligence scores of nations seem primarily to be on non-
verbal test
The net average benefit for pills providing one RDA was about four
points in nonverbal intelligence in the California study. But this aver-
age gain comprised many youngsters who did not benefit at all, mixed
with some whose gains exceeded fifteen points.
quote:
Another environmental and possibly physiological influence on IQ is
suggested by data from twins. Among identical twins, the one with the
higher IQ is likely to have been heavier at birth." This is part of a more
general finding that higher weights at birth are associated with higher IQs
in childhood, hut the identical twin data decisively prove that the corre-
lation between birth weight and later intelligence has an environmental
element, since identical twins are genetic clones. It is less certain that
there are no social factors here: People may treat twin babies differently if
one is plumper than the other. Training mothers in how to be more atten-
tive to their low-birth-weight babies seems, in fact, to raise later IQ, at least
up to the age of 7.
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 8/2/25 at 5:27 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Can you please quote what the OP said and then quote me quoting it to show me the lie. Thanks
You quote the exact language that says what you claim you fricking lying count. You're not going to spin me in circles. Maybe this shite works on fricking children but lying like you do to adults will get you this kind of treatment 100% of time
Posted on 8/2/25 at 5:27 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Edit: oh. I didn’t realize I replied to one of your posts. My mistake
You're correct you should avoid replying to my posts because I fricking embarrass you every time. It's better for you to avoid me. You've got the intellect of a fricking 4-year-old with the honesty of a pit viper
Posted on 8/2/25 at 5:56 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
These are the words that were used that you claim mean something other than their actual definitions
quote:
Specifically that black parents in America do not read to (or even talk to) their children the way other races do when they are very young.
Yes.
The operative phrase being, "THE WAY OTHER RACES DO."
If I had meant to say that black people didn't read to their children at all, I would have said, "Specifically that black parents in America do not read to (or even talk to) their children at all when they are very young."
Now, I suspect it may be dawning upon you soon that the sentence you quoted can be read two different ways, either of which are equally correct. It can be read the way you read it, or it can be read to mean, "Specifically that black parents in America do not read to their children with the frequency or consistency of other races when they are very young.
You interpreted it one way and were oblivious to the other way it could be interpreted, and instead of paying more attention to what you were reading—even after you were told that the way you interpreted the sentence was not correct—you doubled and tripled down.
This is why you are so disliked here. This is why you couldn't sustain a civil conversation. When you start asking, "What happened, I thought we were having a nice conversation?" this is likely what happened.
You simply cannot have a full discussion with someone without eventually mischaracterizing what they have said. Previously I thought this was entirely deliberate on your part. Now I think it might just be partly deliberate and partly the result of poor reading comprehension.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 6:02 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The operative phrase being, "THE WAY OTHER RACES DO."
She's known exactly what you said this entire thread. She just saw an opportunity to pretend and run you in circles and everybody else because she's a raging lying count. Well. That. Or retarded. I guess she can pick
Posted on 8/2/25 at 6:17 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
She's known exactly what you said this entire thread. She just saw an opportunity to pretend and run you in circles and everybody else because she's a raging lying count.
That's what I used to think.
(Trust me, she and I have had this conversation many times before.)
This time I'm not so sure. But if you're right, this is the last time I'm ever engaging with her, because if you're right, the faith with which she engages is worse than I ever thought.
Page 26 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News