Is anyone here unfortunate enough to be an Asian American?

[Al B. Sure!]

Hera:

You might find this very interesting...

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx

135 IQ, baby! Do I belong to your race of uebermenschen, Hera?

It seems a little screwy though. A 100 IQ is said to be equivalent to an 880 SAT score. An 880 is like retarded.

(Note, this is for the old SAT I which is different than the new test that has been administered since like 2005 or so)

[Heraclitus]

Read the bold. The rest is self-delusional bull****. Also, you only read one side of an issue, lack any form of critical thinking where you blindly accept any information that you agree with and treat it as fact. That you think you are having an intellectual discussion is a joke. You may as well be Dinodoc or Oerdin on racism. These are the facts!

Let me get this straight. You disagree with the bolded area right? Do you disagree with the idea that people differ genetically in their IQ potential? Or do you disagre with the idea that IQ is a reasonable (if not perfect) proxy for inteligence?

Even so do you think that the world wouldn't be better off (in the sense of a standard of living) with a larger share of smarter people? Do you perhaps simply disagree on the means to acheive this (reduce rates of parasitic infections, improve education, improve childhood nutrition instead of say eugenics) or do you disagree that a increase of inteligence (all else being equal) would improve quality of live over time?

[Heraclitus]

As to me ignroing contrary findings, this is at least partialy untrue. I've changed my opinion on several inteligence and genetic related issues once exposed to contrary infromation. Testosteron levels are a example even you or perhaps at least Albert will recall.

[Heraclitus]

Hera:

You might find this very interesting...

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx

135 IQ, baby! Do I belong to your race of uebermenschen, Hera?

It seems a little screwy though. A 100 IQ is said to be equivalent to an 880 SAT score. An 880 is like retarded.

(Note, this is for the old SAT I which is different than the new test that has been administered since like 2005 or so)

The real issue is how many children you will have. If your IQ really would be 135 I would encurage you to have children and also think it fair the state slapped you with higher tax reductions the more kids you had.

However. The important bit is also the inteligence of the mate you would choose. Also depends to which mean you'll regress to. If I recall right you have a Arab (or was it mixed?) backround? Syria or Lebanon?
Even if your kids regress to 90, 135 is still a ok place to start. If however your kids regressed to 80 this might put my support for you having kids on about the same level a 100 IQ guy from a 100 IQ population has, which is still something since even 100 IQ people have subreplacement fertility.

The sad thing about regression towards the mean is that a South Korean Janitor has a higher chance of having a smart kid than a Black Judge from Angola. African countries need to employ eugenic measures on all Black populations, otherwise we would just end up selecting for Asian, Arab or White admixture. Sure after a few generations the alleles for inteligence would break out on their own and wouldn't drag other racial admixtures with them, but I'd much prefer we increased the frequency of existing unique African alleles for inteligence (we know recent selection for inteligence has taken place since West Africans have IQs a good 10 or 15 points higher than Khosians or Pygmyes and West African body types developed over a mere 10k years when exposed to the selective pressures of tropical farming).

Humans shouldn't merge into one group, we need to employ eugenic measures on various isolated populations so evolution has a chance to try different things. The genes that make Brahim smart are not the same ones as the ones that make the urban population of China smart which are again different from the ones that make the Askenazi smart, and this is a very good thing. Fortunatley even if we loose isolated populations in the next few centuries eugenic measures might be able to create new isolated populations so we can explore several evolutionary paths.

[giblets]

The real issue is how many children you will have. If your IQ really would be 135 I would encurage you to have children and also think it fair the state slapped you with higher tax reductions the more kids you had.

However. The important bit is also the inteligence of the mate you would choose. Also depends to which mean you'll regress to. If I recall right you have a Arab (or was it mixed?) backround? Syria or Lebanon?
Even if your kids regress to 90, 135 is still a ok place to start. If however your kids regressed to 80 this might put my support for you having kids on about the same level a 100 IQ guy from a 100 IQ population has.

Wait, are you saying you think a white person is better than an arab with the same intelligence?

[Heraclitus]

Wait, are you saying you think a white person or an asian is better than an arab with the same intelligence?

WTF no!

I'm just saying his children's inteligence will regress towards a higher mean.



You need to read this.



y is the expected IQ of the child,
x is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong,
h2 is the heritability of IQ,
m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively

From wikipedia:

The equation asserts that, on average, the IQ of a child tends to the mean IQ of the population. For instance, if the heritability of IQ is 50% and the mean IQ of a population is 100, then a couple with an average IQ of 120 will, on average, have a child with an IQ of 110. Similarly, a couple with an average IQ of 80 will, on average, have a child with an IQ of 90.

It all depends on the population his kids will be a part of. I would give as much support to a 135 IQ Angolan having more children as I would support a 135 IQ Japanese guy having kids. However I would be less encouraging for a gentile White guy with a IQ of 135 to have a kid living in Israel than a Askenazi 135 IQ Jew.

[Heraclitus]

Also I would support a 135 IQ African American having children as much as a 135 IQ Asian American because in the US as smart Whites and Asians are de facto segregated from low IQ Whites and Blacks so one can really treat them as seperate populations.

Also a hypothetical Black endogamus subpopulation with a average IQ of 110 would recieve as much support from me as the endogamus white population known as the Askenazi Jews get. This is not about Arabs being better or worse than Whites for eugenic purposes.

Yes there currently is disparate impact by ethnicity, this in itself is not however enough to term something racist or even unfair else the tanning bed tax would be racist.



According to Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law:

"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect"

We would just analyze the genes of someone to figure out what his supopulation's mean IQ will be (in a few decades we should be able to do this). I'm using ethnicity as a reasonable proxy for this because I don't yet have the technology neither do I have Albert's DNA sample to home in on more precise subpopulations.

Eventually the disparate impact would dissapear since we would hit diminishing returns on the high IQ side.

[DaShi]

Let me get this straight. You disagree with the bolded area right? Do you disagree with the idea that people differ genetically in their IQ potential? Or do you disagre with the idea that IQ is a reasonable (if not perfect) proxy for inteligence?

Even so do you think that the world wouldn't be better off (in the sense of a standard of living) with a larger share of smarter people? Do you perhaps simply disagree on the means to acheive this (reduce rates of parasitic infections, improve education, improve childhood nutrition instead of say eugenics) or do you disagree that a increase of inteligence (all else being equal) would improve quality of live over time?

God damn, you are Ben level retarded. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby? How can you be this thick and be able to use a computer?

[Heraclitus]

God damn, you are Ben level retarded. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby? How can you be this thick and be able to use a computer?

You stalk my threads, I assume you are bothered immensley by my opinions or what you construe them to be. So since I'm curius I took the opportunity to ask you right away if you disagree with the bolded part (the one you characterised as the gist of my opinions) and what specifically about the opinions you consider moot.


Now tell me. Do you think people would be better off if we had a larger share of highly inteligent people? And is this important enough to do something about it? If so we simply disagree on the methods. You belive the enivronemntal changes should be pursued (I put forward the example of parasitic infectiosn which have been shown to be responsible for a drop of a few IQ points, also put forward eliminating childhood malnutrition and better education) while I belive we'll get much larger returns on the genetic front. Do you simply think genetics are dwarfed by envrionemnt or are you a blank slatist?

I've asked you this or somethign equivalnet so many times these past few months, its very annyoning, especially since you are so inconsistent with your stances. The only reason I still respond to you is because I want to figure out what the **** you are about.

If you don't think a higher share of highly inteligent people would be good for everyone the text I'm quoting sure makes little sense.

[DaShi]

You stalk my threads, I assume you are bothered immensley by my opinions or what you construe them to be. So since I'm curius I took the opportunity to ask you right away if you disagree with the bolded part. The one you characterised as the gist of my opinions.

So you're saying here that you want to suck Hilter's ****? Wow, that's quite an admission.

[Heraclitus]

So you're saying here that you want to suck Hilter's ****? Wow, that's quite an admission.

****. I respondend directly to what you said in the very next post.

Finding out what the **** you think was the first thing that poped in my mind. Responding to what you say is about as pleasant as trying to squash a mosquito pestering you at night.

[DaShi]

It's like you come from bizzaro world or something.

[Heraclitus]

This:

As to me ignoring contrary findings, this is at least partialy untrue. I've changed my opinion on several inteligence and genetic related issues once exposed to contrary infromation. Testosteron levels are a example even you or perhaps at least Albert will recall.

is somehow not a reasonable response to this:

you only read one side of an issue, lack any form of critical thinking where you blindly accept any information that you agree with and treat it as fact. That you think you are having an intellectual discussion is a joke. You may as well be Dinodoc or Oerdin on racism. These are the facts!

Whatever.

Can you now just please respond to this:

Now tell me. Do you think people would be better off if we had a larger share of highly inteligent people? And is this important enough to do something about it? If so we simply disagree on the methods. You belive the enivronemntal changes should be pursued (I put forward the example of parasitic infectiosn which have been shown to be responsible for a drop of a few IQ points, also put forward eliminating childhood malnutrition and better education) while I belive we'll get much larger returns on the genetic front. Do you simply think genetics are dwarfed by envrionemnt or are you a blank slatist?

And I promise to directly respond to your next plainly stated direct question as long as it isn't too personal.

[DaShi]

Oh, I see. You have a learning disability. That explains a lot.

[giblets]

We would just analyze the genes of someone to figure out what his supopulation's mean IQ will be (in a few decades we should be able to do this). I'm using ethnicity as a reasonable proxy for this because I don't yet have the technology neither do I have Albert's DNA sample to home in on more precise subpopulations.

Eventually the disparate impact would dissapear since we would hit diminishing returns on the high IQ side.

Without the ability to analyze people's genes, what's the basis for your belief that arabs generally have worse genes making them dumber on average?