Making the news today....

[AHPP]

26 minutes ago, Oldfeller said:

you post that,,, and then talk of civility!

I don't think I want to be at your level of understanding thank you, Your post is so convoluted and ridiculous It's hard to imagine anybody but you understanding it. I'm out.

 

I'm challenging you to think about things that you probably haven't had to before. I get why that jars. We're used to the way things are, the structures etc. We're trained to not think too hard about it and just get on with the day to day.

But anyway. You don't have to answer the challenge.

[eggsarascal]

I've known Alex for years, trustworthy, reliable from a good family who invited me into their home on many occasions. I understand it makes sense to you Alex, but...

[AHPP]

I don't mind. It's not just written for him. I write for anyone who reads, wants to understand and is capable of understanding. Plenty of people are.

Edited 18 hours ago by AHPP

[AHPP]

But I do agree. I'm a smashing fellow.

[eggsarascal]

14 minutes ago, AHPP said:

But I do agree. I'm a smashing fellow.

That's what it's about, opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.

[Steven P]

To be honest I haven't read this research, in the back of my mind it sounds half like I knew it existed - so passed by it somewhere (I do remember Watson and Crick from school days and fruit flies)

 

2 hours ago, AHPP said:

He brought it up, from a scientific perspective of looking at a load of intelligence tests and then coming to a conclusion from the numbers. Then all the Brighton types called him a nasty racist so he said sod you and retired from serving the world if reason no longer matters to it.

 

Anyway... just a passing musing... I am wondering if the intelligence tests were western or European based? Couple of examples from past lives, one company was doing tests to see if we fitted our roles well (really working out redundancies... but will go official line) - standard test for us all, my day to day work fitted the test perfectly, girl from another department - accounts or something - had never done anything similar - so I was marked down as better where it was just experience. Second one goes back to school days - maths - I could do sums, some kids couldn't... until they were asked to work out the premier league table.. and they could do it instantly - no less clever, just less interested. So going back again, I wonder if the Africans are just as clever, but the tests were asking the wrong things?

[tree-fancier123]

2 hours ago, AHPP said:

 

Yes. And people have a right to be who they are, closer to or further from animals or possessing more or less of any other characteristic. Birds of a feather flock together, which generally works. Africans scrat about mud huts for food and dancing. Londoners scrat about Canary Wharf for money and Porsches. Both peoples are surrounded by others with similar outlooks, goals, needs, wants etc so people understand each other and are able to get on and interact with relatively similar and equal understandings and demands of each other.

 

The other way to look at it is to use intelligence as a metric. James Watson, half of the Watson and Crick known for discovering DNA brought up the issue a few years ago. 

In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

 

And people have a right to be who they are? 

Hmmm this bit is something cultural and not biological. Primates inc sapiens dont have rights to food water shelter poetry music - its stuff in the environment that they possibly can get if they can overcome competition and physical difficulties

 

I agree with James Watson, except for a slight nuance, intelligence is part nature (the genes, inhereted neuronal bio computational innate ability) and part nurture (learning from others in the environment)

I personally dont think blacks and brown skinned people from Asia and Africa are less well endowed than caucasians with cerebral circuitry, otherwise how did all the asians end up running Microsoft Google et al. Admittedly more Indians than golliwogs, maybe the gollies have not evolved to the same complexity as the Anglo Saxons.

Even a five grand computer is useless without software. Program the jamjar golli and it will execute with the best of them

[AHPP]

21 minutes ago, Steven P said:

Anyway... just a passing musing... I am wondering if the intelligence tests were western or European based? Couple of examples from past lives, one company was doing tests to see if we fitted our roles well (really working out redundancies... but will go official line) - standard test for us all, my day to day work fitted the test perfectly, girl from another department - accounts or something - had never done anything similar - so I was marked down as better where it was just experience. Second one goes back to school days - maths - I could do sums, some kids couldn't... until they were asked to work out the premier league table.. and they could do it instantly - no less clever, just less interested. So going back again, I wonder if the Africans are just as clever, but the tests were asking the wrong things?

 

Good question. Don't know. You'd hope he'd have addressed that in the research (and the people whose research he relied on did too) or they'd be just as guilty of peddling weak science as the people who wailed and gnashed teeth at him. I've not read the whole thing. Now it's buried in the canceling.

 

There's no such thing as right or wrong in this instance. It's just suitability for your environment. If you compete for resources at Canary Wharf, you need to be western intelligent. If you want to find water and eat the right berries in Limpopo, you might need to be African intelligent.

 

Anecdotally, I nearly always find blacks thick. I think like a westerner though of course.

[AHPP]

31 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

And people have a right to be who they are? 

Hmmm this bit is something cultural and not biological. Primates inc sapiens dont have rights to food water shelter poetry music - its stuff in the environment that they possibly can get if they can overcome competition and physical difficulties

 

I agree with James Watson, except for a slight nuance, intelligence is part nature (the genes, inhereted neuronal bio computational innate ability) and part nurture (learning from others in the environment)

I personally dont think blacks and brown skinned people from Asia and Africa are less well endowed than caucasians with cerebral circuitry, otherwise how did all the asians end up running Microsoft Google et al. Admittedly more Indians than golliwogs, maybe the gollies have not evolved to the same complexity as the Anglo Saxons.

Even a five grand computer is useless without software. Program the jamjar golli and it will execute with the best of them

 

In western legal systems, rights are broadly based on an ability to own oneself and advocate for a property right to yourself. That's why animals don't have rights, don't have a legal personality etc (so you have to set up a trust with a human trustee if you want to leave everything to your cat). I asked a while ago on here, probably in this thread when someone was calling someone racist, what they define racism as. I define it as when you think a certain group of people are unworthy or incapable of self ownership. If they fall below the threshold of being human in a legal ish sense. So you can dislike blacks, Indians, whoever as much as you like but you're not a racist until you think they can be owned as property because they're not capable of being their own property.

 

I find generally blacks are thick and Asians are clever (though unfortunately dishonest with it). I always take the time to speak to blacks I cross paths with and see if I can find a spark of European style intellect. I've never even got as far as I did with Oldfeller up the page. I don't think they're programmable.

[Steven P]

Exactly that if you measure intelligence by a spreadsheet you will fail if your intelligence is knowing what roots, berries and animals will kill you. Can't say either is better than the other, just applied to different skills.