Academia flashes it's labia !!!!!

[johnwesley]

Study of brain genes sparks a backlash.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.-
php

Reprinted from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06

John

[outsor]

There is no biological reality of the popular culture concept
of "race".

[johnwesley]

outsor@cityweb.com wrote:
> There is no biological reality of the popular culture
> concept of "race".

And beagles are the same in behavior as terriers.

John

[Robert Kol]

outsor@cityweb.com wrote:

> There is no biological reality of the popular culture
> concept of "race".

Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. In society A, females
favor the "hunks", the guys with muscles and big dicks. In
society B, femailes favor the "brains", guys showing great
intelligence and ability to handle abstractions. Now which
society will produce smarter people? Which society will
produce more muscular or athletic people?

Bob Kolker

[outsor]

>> There is no biological reality of the popular culture
>> concept of "race".
>
>And beagles are the same in behavior as terriers.

And the leopard doesn't change his spots nor the motivation
for his behavior. Repeat, discussion welcome based on science,
there are no "races" as understood in common usage. The two
dog varieties mentioned are not "races" either.

[Gmcarter]

On 20 Jun 2006 10:53:31 -0700, johnwesley55@lycos.com wrote:

>Study of brain genes sparks a backlash.
>
>http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists-
>_stud.php
>
>Reprinted from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06

Commented on with breathtaking ignorance by a bunch of
white-supremacists jackanapes suffering from brain envy.

George M. Carter

[Dan In Phi]

<johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ...
> Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. http://www.amren.co-
> m/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php Reprinted from
> page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 John

The problem is that the researcher tried to correlate genes
with 'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you measure
_innate_ intelligence (with social effects removed), and there
is no such measure.

Dan in Philly

[Just Cocky]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:07:59 -0400, "Dan in Philly"
<djr8@aol.com> wrote:
>
><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ...
>> Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. http://www.amren.c-
>> om/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php Reprinted
>> from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 John
>
>
>The problem is that the researcher tried to correlate genes
>with 'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you measure
>_innate_ intelligence (with social effects removed), and
>there is no such measure.
>

Are you saying that a person born naturally dumb can become
intelligent by the works of some "social effects"? Do you have
any references suggesting that intelligence can be learned?

--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell

[Ken Chaddo]

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:07:59 -0400, "Dan in Philly"
> <djr8@aol.com> wrote:
>
>><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. http://www.amren.c-
>>>om/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php Reprinted
>>>from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 John
>>
>>
>>The problem is that the researcher tried to correlate genes
>>with 'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you measure
>>_innate_ intelligence (with social effects removed), and
>>there is no such measure.

> Are you saying that a person born naturally dumb can become
> intelligent by the works of some "social effects"? Do you
> have any references suggesting that intelligence can be
> learned?

I think he's suggesting rather the opposite, that a
person can become "dumb" (by your standard) if his
culture has different values and imperatives and
simply doesn't concentrate on the issues you find
important or indicative of "intelligence". For
example, quite a few years ago I read a thesis
concerning "IQ" tests. US, inner city kids (mostly
blacks and latinos) were doing very poorly on standard
IQ tests. A researcher, I don't remember the name,
proposed that this was not the result of any generally
lower intelligence but of how the questions were being
posed and he re-wrote the IQ tests in street language
and tested thinking skills with problems that would be
more familiar to an inner city kid and voila, the IQ
scores rose dramatically. As a "control", when these
"new" tests were administered to suburban (usually
white and oriental) kids, their scores dropped
dramatically for just like the inner city kids had
been on the old tests, the suburban kids were being
faced with problems they had never confronted before,
in language they didn't fully understand...the test
methodology (ie: the test "culture") was making them
look "dumb"...

...Ken

[Just Cocky]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:43:45 GMT, Ken Chaddock
<chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:07:59 -0400, "Dan in Philly"
>> <djr8@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. http://www.amren.-
>>>>com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php Reprinted
>>>>from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 John
>>>
>>>
>>>The problem is that the researcher tried to correlate genes
>>>with 'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you
>>>measure _innate_ intelligence (with social effects
>>>removed), and there is no such measure.
>
>> Are you saying that a person born naturally dumb can become
>> intelligent by the works of some "social effects"? Do you
>> have any references suggesting that intelligence can be
>> learned?
>
> I think he's suggesting rather the opposite, that a
> person can become "dumb" (by your standard) if his
> culture has different values and imperatives and
> simply doesn't concentrate on the issues you find
> important or indicative of "intelligence". For
> example, quite a few years ago I read a thesis
> concerning "IQ" tests. US, inner city kids (mostly
> blacks and latinos) were doing very poorly on standard
> IQ tests. A researcher, I don't remember the name,
> proposed that this was not the result of any generally
> lower intelligence but of how the questions were being
> posed and he re-wrote the IQ tests in street language
> and tested thinking skills with problems that would be
> more familiar to an inner city kid and voila, the IQ
> scores rose dramatically. As a "control", when these
> "new" tests were administered to suburban (usually
> white and oriental) kids, their scores dropped
> dramatically for just like the inner city kids had
> been on the old tests, the suburban kids were being
> faced with problems they had never confronted before,
> in language they didn't fully understand...the test
> methodology (ie: the test "culture") was making them
> look "dumb"...
>

Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to see the results.
In any case, I find intresting that researchers can develop
good IQ tests for parrots (no culture!) and have this kind of
problem for humans.

--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell

[Dan In Phi]

<snip>

If we really wanted to separate the genetic component of
intelligence from social effects, we would take a bunch of
newborn kids from smart parents, then assign them randomly to
different families. Ten or twenty years later we could check
to see if the kids raised by 'dumb' parents also ended up
dumb, or ended up smart like their genetic parents.

Somehow I don't think we'll see this experiment done
anytime soon.

Dan in Philly

[Just Cocky]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:49:59 -0400, "Dan in Philly"
<djr8@aol.com> wrote:
>
>If we really wanted to separate the genetic component of
>intelligence from social effects, we would take a bunch of
>newborn kids from smart parents, then assign them randomly to
>different families. Ten or twenty years later we could check
>to see if the kids raised by 'dumb' parents also ended up
>dumb, or ended up smart like their genetic parents.
>

I believe something has already been done with twins that for
some reason were separated at birth. If I'm not mistaken, I
read about this on Freakonomics. The conclusion is that
genetics is the main contributor to academic performance
(explains 50% of the correlation) with the second most
influential thing being peer pressure.

--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt"
-- Bertrand Russell

[Ken Chaddo]

Just Cocky wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:43:45 GMT, Ken Chaddock
> <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:07:59 -0400, "Dan in Philly"
>>><djr8@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><johnwesley55@lycos.com> wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Study of brain genes sparks a backlash. http://www.amren-
>>>>>.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/scientists_stud.php
>>>>>Reprinted from page 1, Wall Street Journal 6/19/06 John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that the researcher tried to correlate
>>>>genes with 'intelligence' but that only makes sense if you
>>>>measure _innate_ intelligence (with social effects
>>>>removed), and there is no such measure.
>>
>>>Are you saying that a person born naturally dumb can become
>>>intelligent by the works of some "social effects"? Do you
>>>have any references suggesting that intelligence can be
>>>learned?
>>
>> I think he's suggesting rather the opposite, that a
>> person can become "dumb" (by your standard) if his
>> culture has different values and imperatives and
>> simply doesn't concentrate on the issues you find
>> important or indicative of "intelligence". For
>> example, quite a few years ago I read a thesis
>> concerning "IQ" tests. US, inner city kids (mostly
>> blacks and latinos) were doing very poorly on standard
>> IQ tests. A researcher, I don't remember the name,
>> proposed that this was not the result of any generally
>> lower intelligence but of how the questions were being
>> posed and he re-wrote the IQ tests in street language
>> and tested thinking skills with problems that would be
>> more familiar to an inner city kid and voila, the IQ
>> scores rose dramatically. As a "control", when these
>> "new" tests were administered to suburban (usually
>> white and oriental) kids, their scores dropped
>> dramatically for just like the inner city kids had
>> been on the old tests, the suburban kids were being
>> faced with problems they had never confronted before,
>> in language they didn't fully understand...the test
>> methodology (ie: the test "culture") was making them
>> look "dumb"...

> Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to see the
> results. In any case, I find intresting that researchers can
> develop good IQ tests for parrots (no culture!) and have
> this kind of problem for humans.

Unfortunately no, this was some years ago...actually
before wide spread use of the internet. The article
was, if I recall, in a Scientific journal (I read a
fair number of them) but I can't say whether it was in
"Science" or "Scientific American" or a Psychology
journal...

...Ken