cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
johnaa
Advisor

Re: Women in power

  Yep.  Hard to find anything to disagree with in what you wrote.  And likely you understand how rare that is for me.

 

  Government should protect against crimes like all forms of and theft and fraud market manipulations by individuals and combinations.   The myth government can manipulate economy results in those special interests corrupting through corrupt government. 

 

  The most positive thing government can do is leave investment to market forces, instead of monopolizing investment, therby limiting the money available to private enterprise.

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: I'm not suggesting you are profoundly prejudiced.....

Only everything 30. Those are definable nouns. Self defined and worn with pride out in the open. Representing multi-ethnic and multi-religions demographics.
 
A neocon zionist is...... a neoconservative zionist.
 
What were you actually trolling john for there?
Kay/NC
Honored Advisor

Re: Women in power

Hard to say...a lot of women just didn't drive at all.  I am sure that the advent of Valium as "Mother's Little Helper" didn't so much end desperation, as it postponed the pain, until cocktail hour. 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: I'm not suggesting you are profoundly prejudiced.....


@bruce MN wrote:
Only everything 30. Those are definable nouns. Self defined and worn with pride out in the open. Representing multi-ethnic and multi-religions demographics.
 
A neocon zionist is...... a neoconservative zionist.
 
What were you actually trolling john for there?

Trolling John? What is it you are trolling for Bruce? John is the biggest hypocrite on the board when it come to stereotypes. The neocon zionist control the world's media and money and anyone that disagrees with him is a sheeple controlled by the noecon zionist puppetmasters that need to grow up.

johnaa
Advisor

Lying still !... We We WEEEE.

  Even after Bruce pointed out to your ignorance of what the word stereotyping means, you turn around and again use it in a LIE.  You just can't handle or face Truth and reality

 

You cannot supply proof I ever wrote anything about the zionists control of the 'world's"media and especially you will not find that I ever wrote anthing about the zionist control of the world's money.   The zionists do have a great deal of control of the US media, as was proven last week.

 

I repeatedly point out that YOU, are a dupe of puppetmasters, ziocons, lushmo type talking clowns nd other lying scum,that is obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.  That is only you, alone.  You  do not represent anyone but yourself, no matter how much you go  we we wee.   You're a compulsive LIAR and a completely dedicated to cultivating YOUR ignorance.  You, I am not speaking to anyone else.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Women in power

Actually, the 'government as referee' thing could work out pretty well (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

For example, if Congressmen were already wearing the striped shirts, it would make the adjustment to prison, that much easier.

GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: Women in power

Ya, I think you could have a chance! At least as good, probably better than old Sarah.

 

Don't sweat the long nights! All you need is a couple little eskimo gals for company!

Milligan Hay - Iowa d:^)
Veteran Advisor

Re: Total Baloney

That is baloney.  Genetics are the basis for just about everything.  From genetic predictability in dairy cows to lines of racing horses..... and yes, PEOPLE, too.

 

In my immediate family, we have two very high IQ testing members.  Also, the Mensa members are almost all Northern European and Asian genotypes.  Here is an article from the New York Times, no less, that confirms it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/14/us/first-gene-to-be-linked-with-high-intelligence-is-reported-foun...

 

First Gene to Be Linked With High Intelligence Is Reported Found

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: May 14, 1998

Psychologists using a new genetic technique have found a gene associated with high intelligence. The technique, they say, should help to identify several more of the many genes thought to affect human intelligence and personality. If the work is confirmed by other researchers, it would be the first time that a gene contributing to intelligence had been found.

The new finding is a tender green shoot arising from the ashes of a long-smoldering debate about whether intelligence is determined by people's genes or by the circumstances of their upbringing. Many psychologists now believe there is clear evidence that heredity is important but not all powerful, and that genes account for about 50 percent or more of the variance in I.Q., or intelligence quotient. Variance is a statistical measure of how widely a quality varies in a population.

The gene was pinpointed by studying about 50 students whose SAT scores were equivalent to an I.Q. score of 160 or higher, and by comparing their DNA with children of average I.Q.

The research, published in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science, was conducted by Dr. Robert Plomin, a leading American behavioral geneticist who works at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. His co-authors include Dr. David Lubinski and Dr. Camilla Benbow. Their talent search program, known as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, supplied the test subjects.

Dr. Plomin has sought to move the debate forward by arguing that if genes for intelligence exist it should be possible to track some of them down through the powerful new genetic scanning techniques that have recently become available. Searching through a small part of the human genome, the long arm of chromosome 6, he found that a particular variant of a certain gene was twice as common in his sample of children with ultra-high I.Q.'s than in those with average I.Q.'s The gene has a very small effect, accounting for about 2 percent of the variance, or 4 I.Q. points, Dr. Plomin said.

So slight an effect would be expected in a trait influenced by many genes. There might be 50 or more genes affecting intelligence, experts say, and a person with a high I.Q. would have the favorable versions of only some of these genes. Only half the children with high I.Q.'s in Dr. Plomin's study had the intelligence-promoting form of the gene he detected.

Dr. Nathan Brody, a psychologist at Wesleyan University, said Dr. Plomin's finding was a small step in itself but of ''enormous significance'' if it proved to be the beginning of the detection of other genes that influence intelligence.

''I think his work is an important technical achievement,'' said Dr. John Kihlstrom, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley. ''He has married the human genome technology with the study of behavioral genetics.'' Dr. Kihlstrom is the editor of the journal in which Dr. Plomin's study appeared. Dr. Kihlstrom said that Dr. Plomin is a leading figure in the field of behavior genetics and that the new report was ''the first time that a gene has been associated with some specific aspect of cognition and behavior,'' with the exception of the gene governing the behavioral disorder known as Williams syndrome.

Another psychologist who studies the genetics of behavior, Dr. Thomas Bouchard of the University of Minnesota, said the new finding was ''nice ordinary science without extravagant claims'' but would require independent studies before being confirmed.

The genes Dr. Plomin has been seeking are those that affect intelligence in the broadest sense, known to psychologists as general cognitive ability. This is the quality that I.Q. tests seek to measure. Brain experts now believe that general cognitive ability is composed of many overlapping capabilities, like verbal and math skills.

The genetic variation Dr. Plomin found lies in an obscure but extremely powerful gene known as the I.G.F.2 receptor gene. The I.G.F.2, or insulin-like growth factor 2, is a multifaceted hormone about which little is known. Dr. Randy Jirtle, a molecular biologist at Duke University who studies the gene because of its involvement in cancer, said it might influence both the development and everyday metabolism of the brain, although neither role has been proved. At the least, Dr. Jirtle said, Dr. Plomin has hit on a ''plausible candidate'' for a gene that affects intelligence.

Dr. Mony De Leon, a neuroscientist at the New York University School of Medicine, said, ''This is the first step of its kind, but a very small step, toward establishing what the inherited aspects of intelligence may be.''

The variation found by Dr. Plomin and his team lies in a part of the gene's DNA that is trimmed away before the genetic message is translated into a working protein. Thus the variation probably cannot in itself affect intelligence but presumably lies next to some translated region that does.

The finding is a statistical association, not proof of causation, and requires several further steps to make the claim of an intelligence gene indisputable. Besides independent corroboration, biologists would wish to locate the translated part of the variant gene and understand how it affects intelligence.

Genetic variations like those Dr. Plomin is studying may be more common in some ethnic groups and less common in others. To prevent any ethnic effect from confounding the link between genes and intelligence, Dr. Plomin decided to confine his study to a single ethnic group, in this case white Americans.

The finding has no immediate practical importance, since the gene accounts for such a small percentage of intelligence. But Dr. Plomin says he expects to find many more such genes, including at least one on each of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes. Knowledge of these genes, and what they do, could in time help researchers understand the nature of intelligence, as well as learning disabilities and the intellectual decay that occurs in Alzheimer's disease.

But Dr. Kihlstrom said he feared a more immediate reaction. Despite the tiny effect of the gene, he said, ''I confidently predict that within two months there will be genetic centers set up for profit to test parents for this gene.'' He said such centers would be a ''crummy idea.''

Dr. Plomin and his colleagues said they were well aware of the potentials for abuse of their finding, like discriminative genetic screening and assertions that genes determine everything. ''Despite the new problems created by new findings,'' they wrote in their report, ''it would be a mistake, and futile as well, to try to cut off the flow of knowledge and its benefits in order to avoid having to confront new problems.''

johnaa
Advisor

Your Reading comprehension performance is less than genius

  The conversation was about intelligence of--- groups--- of people(not random individuals), why some people believe one--- group--- is more or less intelligent than others.  a couple people gave their ideas of the reasons for this perception.

 

James wrote---"Similar to comparing black and white intelligence. Based on my experience, I agree with the studies that show whites are generally smarter than blacks. Doesn't mean all whites are smarter, but if arbitrarily chosen, a group of whites will statistically have an advantage over blacks. Now if you want to skew the results and pick only whites from Appalachia and blacks that are tending a university, obviously the blacks will "win"."

 

Then Red wrote-- "I would like to see what happens to racial stereotypes for intelligence when you try to compare apples to apples on family background. Asian families are the most cohesive, and it shows on how well the children turn out. Blacks tend to be single mothers much more often, and the kids are at a huge disadvantage in America. If you adjust for these factors, and for economic factors, I doubt that there is much of a difference in intellect."

 

 

 

 Then I added---> "Real studies of intelligence has indicated greater relation of nutrition, prenatal and early to intelligence than genetics. Nutritional differences has a great deal with culture, for instance cultures which abstain from alcohol produce a larger percentage of superior intelligence."

 

  James was clearly addressing "whites" and blacks' while Red added"Asian" and addressed cultural influences. I was adding to this discussion by relating the larger aspect of nutrition and different nutritional influence of cultural diets.

 

  Surely there is little debate that alcohol in a embryo and enfant nutrition lowers expectations of intelligence, even for a individual who may have this supposed gene.

 

  Perhaps my comments was not quite so clear the topic was about intelligence of groups and cultures, and perhaps I should have chosen another word besides genetics, which I used instead of race.   Race is basically an illusion, because there all humans share the same basic RNA genome, so for the purpose of this discussion groups of humans are better identified by shared culture, diet and social habits.

 

  You have repeatedly made claims that certain groups, you delusional think are separate and distinct,  your notions of this racial separateness relate to superior intelligence.   That is baloney. 

 

 however I would have thought someone with such a high IQ as yours would have been able to follow and comprehend the line of reasoning.

 

  

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Lying still !... We We WEEEE.


@johnaa wrote:

  Even after Bruce pointed out to your ignorance of what the word stereotyping means, you turn around and again use it in a LIE.  You just can't handle or face Truth and reality

 

You cannot supply proof I ever wrote anything about the zionists control of the 'world's"media and especially you will not find that I ever wrote anthing about the zionist control of the world's money.   The zionists do have a great deal of control of the US media, as was proven last week.

 

I repeatedly point out that YOU, are a dupe of puppetmasters, ziocons, lushmo type talking clowns nd other lying scum,that is obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.  That is only you, alone.  You  do not represent anyone but yourself, no matter how much you go  we we wee.   You're a compulsive LIAR and a completely dedicated to cultivating YOUR ignorance.  You, I am not speaking to anyone else.


There you go again. Anyone who disagrees with you is a decon or a liar. The fact is it is not the neocon zionist that harm muslims. It is muslims who terrorize muslims. Just look at what they are doing to the homesexuals in Iraq. Look what they are doing to each other in Egypt, Lbyia, and Syria. Look what they do to each other in northern Africa. No one can hate a muslim like a muslim. Yet you stereotype anyone that points that out as a neocon zionist puppet.