+ Follow This Topic
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: Your responses

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,483
    Thanks for nothing, DMass.

  2. #17
    DoesntMatter's Avatar
    DoesntMatter is offline Love Gurus
    Country:
    Users Country Flag
    "Hot Love Pancake(s)"
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by bohemiandonut View Post
    Thanks for nothing, DMass.
    Fine I'll respond

    Quote Originally Posted by IndiReloaded View Post
    Doesn't mean shit. Noone can measure intelligence in any meaningful way for every society. Its contextual.
    I wouldn't call it contextual at all. That's definitely sugar coating it. It can be measured with some degree of accuracy, such as an average range. I can post a lot of very concrete statistics but won't..

    Quote Originally Posted by IndiReloaded View Post
    The first sentence is likely true. The second sentence, however, doesn't mean shit, for the reason I stated above. Define "intellectual capacity" and have them arguing for years.

    I hate soft science, did I ever mention that before??
    The idea isn't to take a COMPLETELY quantitative approach to this, but somewhat qualitative

    Quote Originally Posted by lilwing View Post
    Intelligence is individual... not cultural. That's almost as bad as the KKK.
    The argument in this case is not that it is cultural but more of thing of population genetics. It's not as bad as the KKK which was just a bunch of hate mongers. It's just people look at statistics objectively, the results probably made them feel extremely shitty

    Quote Originally Posted by bohemiandonut View Post
    Actually, yes, I think he would ("bow," so to speak). His whole point is that objective data is often viewed as bigoted or just plain evil, which hinders scientific progress. HOWEVER, your second point is correct, Giga. "All" of our policies are not based on the assumption of equality. Just some. To counter Watson, since the data on intelligence is so unreliable, perhaps this is a good thing.

    But wait, you stumble across an important point here. These days, most policies ARE "adjusted for data that was collected by white people," in the sense that white people are expected to perform better on standardized tests. This is the whole basis of affirmative action. White advantage. If everyone is so equal, then rather than adjust more, we should abandon adjustment altogether.

    By the way, from my perspective, this whole 5 dollar footlong deal is the best adjustment in social policy to come around since - actually this pretty much trumps em all.
    Wow donut, you've been at Berkeley how long and those assclown libs haven't convinced you of utopia yet. Congrats!
    Last edited by DoesntMatter; 18-04-08 at 07:31 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. What would your responses be to these statements/questions?
    By Xanithe in forum Love Advice forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 18-01-06, 04:52 AM
  2. dumped for cheating..long* (prefer 4 girls responses)
    By firmjerm in forum Broken Hearts Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 13-09-05, 03:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •