My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
I'm not saying IQ measures are racist. I am saying you are.
You are saying Africans are thick if you think they have an IQ of 59. Do you know what that level of IQ means? It sounds like you don't.
Your level of IQ is relevant to these discussions because you time and time again show yourself to be stupid by the contents of the post. It is a good job you aren't in Nepal because you would drag their results down even further.
Yes you are saying raw IQ measures are racist but just throwing that accusation onto me.
As you have consistently made clear you have an ideological agenda against raw IQ. For you there is no such thing.
Yes you can continue to be as rude and patronising as you are because you have no evidence to dispute the core raw IQ differences other than rudeness and insult
Finally, government doing what business has been doing for the past decade, and making use of large amounts of data to drive decision-making. I know that Dominic Cummings is a Marmite character, but he was totally right about data.
"As I said, I have no idea whether Trump’s endorsement of Vance will matter. What I do know is that the G.O.P. as a whole has turned to hate-based politics. And if you aren’t afraid, you aren’t paying attention."
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
SATS are a test within their educational paradigm as I said.
They do measure something but they're not an objective measure of intelligence. Indeed people spend years preparing for their SATS so they can do better in them, which isn't something that would affect the results if it was an objective culture-blind and education-blind measure.
Take a random American and get them to sit a SATS-equivalent overseas without any preparation and they'll perform worse than in their own SATS they've learnt towards. Take a random non-American and get them to sit the SATS without any preparation and they'll perform worse too. Take a random American, deny them any practice and get them to sit the SATS without any preparation and they'll perform worse too.
It isn't objective and never was. Nor does it need to be to serve the purpose of what its there for, just don't abuse it for something its never intended to be there for.
My (international) school had a US curriculum so I went through SATS (Scholastic Aptitude Tests) and Pre-SATS the year before, which were as you say intended as training. They were hugely important (we had nothing like A-levels) and after doing well in them I got offers from Yale and MIT. They clearly test something, mostly fast logical thinking as I recall them. I'm not a really thorough researcher (didn't enjoy doing a PhD) and they won't have picked that up, and certainly nothing to do with emotional intelligence.
But international comparisons of this sort of thing is a mug's game - too many variables.
If we're being serious about it, one flaw with IQ tests is that they do sometimes require knowledge, which is contrary to the attempted measure (that being reasoning ability, not learned knowledge).
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
What is it that distinguishes SKS’s takeaway and beers with party staff in Durham from BJ’s “birthday party”?
Boris is the Prime Minister and the one who took away our Civil Liberties.
Starmer unquestioningly voted with him, which is bad, and wanted to keep the restrictions for longer which is even worse - but he wasn't the one who introduced the rules, that was Boris.
That shouldn’t lead to FPNs for one event and not the other, surely?
Yes it does, the fact that Downing Street introduced the rules is an aggravating factor as to why this has been investigated and fines issued.
Had this been a random person it would never have been. Downing Street is rightly expected to be held to a higher standard.
Hmm. A random person who happens to be LoTo and voted, as you say, for the very same measure.
At the very least, doesn’t it make it rather rich for SKS to demand his resignation over it? Can’t BJ just say “Well, I am held to higher standards than the LoTo”
"We do not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at that time and will therefore take no further action in relation to this matter."
Durham Constabulary
Seems to shut this ddown.
You mean Durham Constabulary that has a Labour Police Commissioner with some questions over her deputy, that Durham?
I would question how much of SKS’ ‘acquittal’ was because he didn’t break the rules and how much because Durham Constabulary didn’t want to / were suggested to not to pursue the matter. As we’ve seen with Cleveland, the Police in the North East have a particular culture
All very possible, but the end result is a win for Starmer, however much you think the ref was biased
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
What is it that distinguishes SKS’s takeaway and beers with party staff in Durham from BJ’s “birthday party”?
Boris is the Prime Minister and the one who took away our Civil Liberties.
Starmer unquestioningly voted with him, which is bad, and wanted to keep the restrictions for longer which is even worse - but he wasn't the one who introduced the rules, that was Boris.
That shouldn’t lead to FPNs for one event and not the other, surely?
Yes it does, the fact that Downing Street introduced the rules is an aggravating factor as to why this has been investigated and fines issued.
Had this been a random person it would never have been. Downing Street is rightly expected to be held to a higher standard.
Hmm. A random person who happens to be LoTo and voted, as you say, for the very same measure.
At the very least, doesn’t it make it rather rich for SKS to demand his resignation over it? Can’t BJ just say “Well, I am held to higher standards than the LoTo”
"We do not believe an offence has been established in relation to the legislation and guidance in place at that time and will therefore take no further action in relation to this matter."
Durham Constabulary
Seems to shut this ddown.
You mean Durham Constabulary that has a Labour Police Commissioner with some questions over her deputy, that Durham?
I would question how much of SKS’ ‘acquittal’ was because he didn’t break the rules and how much because Durham Constabulary didn’t want to / were suggested to not to pursue the matter. As we’ve seen with Cleveland, the Police in the North East have a particular culture
Nope - Cleveland policy have a particular culture. Durham Police are an awful lot more sane (for instance they don't want anything to do with Cleveland police even after being offered it multiple times over the past 20 years).
Interesting contrast between crossing the French-German border and the French-British one. Just drove across from Germany to France, from one suburb of Strasbourg to another, the change barely perceptible - although French roads are a bit more confusing and less well maintained than German ones. Meanwhile, in the Eurostar terminal in Paris, a lengthy queue caused by the British passport gates being only half-staffed. The British passport officer was obnoxious, too (the French one was very friendly by comparison).
For all those arguing that IQ can't usefully be measured across countries, because IQ is overly focused on achievement within a given educational paradigm, and educational standards aren't consistent across countries: care to have a bash at explaining who set up all those school systems in the developing world, and why they seem to be "worse" than those in the developed world?
UK economy forecast to be slowest growing in the G7 next year (2023) at 1.2%, by the IMF, and no longer top performer this year, after significant downgrades to growth, though was last year in initial post pandemic bounceback.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Only to you, Pet, only to you.
When scan reading I noted two posts - one on a Penis Size by country survey, and another this intelligence by country and then what even is intelligence debate.
Happily nobody has asked if there is a correlation between the two.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Because an IQ test is not a test of intelligence, its a test of intelligence within an educational paradigm.
IQ tests are fundamentally flawed comparing across nations, anyone who understands anything about them understands that.
Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.
'Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.'
So we may as well scrap exams then
Why?
Exams are not a measure of intelligence, nor are they intended to be. That's not what they're there for.
Anyone who thought an exam was an objective measurement of intelligence is pretty damned ignorant.
Not exactly but Chinese pupils also get the highest average GCSE results in the UK, they of course are East Asian
Which just may have something to do with the culture and amount of studying those kids did.
Those kids will have studied and worked hard to get their results, not just rocked up on the day and relied upon their genetics to see them through.
That's pretty much how it worked when I was a kid in the East End, except the two relevant groups were Gentiles and Jews. The Grammar School I went to had a strict policy of accepting 50% of each. Streaming began after first year exams, which were effectively IQ Tests. I got into the Alpha stream as one of six Gentiles, the other 26 in the class were Jews. The Sixth form was almost entirely Jewish, the Gentiles having mostly left at the end of the fifth form, the earliest possible exit date.
It was obvious that the acedamic success of the Jewish boys largely reflected conditions at home and educational values in the families. Everyone knew that. One would hesitate however to categorise them all as especially 'intelligent'. Some could barely tie their laces. They knew how to get the grades though, and academically that was all that mattered.
What does this show? Not much, I think, apart from the truism that there is more to intelligence than exam results and that although IQ might be a handy concept in the right hands it should be interpreted prudently, intelligently even, if it is not to be a hindrance rather than a help.
Btw, in physical endeavors, matters were reversed. The school soccer team seldom had more than one or two Jewish players. It wasn't because they didn't like football.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Only to you, Pet, only to you.
When scan reading I noted two posts - one on a Penis Size by country survey, and another this intelligence by country and then what even is intelligence debate.
Happily nobody has asked if there is a correlation between the two.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Only to you, Pet, only to you.
When scan reading I noted two posts - one on a Penis Size by country survey, and another this intelligence by country and then what even is intelligence debate.
Happily nobody has asked if there is a correlation between the two.
Not yet. I'm waiting for penis girth by GDP.
Somewhat characteristically for PB, the women get left out ...
For all those arguing that IQ can't usefully be measured across countries, because IQ is overly focused on achievement within a given educational paradigm, and educational standards aren't consistent across countries: care to have a bash at explaining who set up all those school systems in the developing world, and why they seem to be "worse" than those in the developed world?
Colonialism.
Didn't seem to do Singapore's IQ scores much harm!
UK economy forecast to be slowest growing in the G7 next year (2023) at 1.2%, by the IMF, and no longer top performer this year, after significant downgrades to growth, though was last year in initial post pandemic bounceback.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Only to you, Pet, only to you.
When scan reading I noted two posts - one on a Penis Size by country survey, and another this intelligence by country and then what even is intelligence debate.
Happily nobody has asked if there is a correlation between the two.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
I'm not saying IQ measures are racist. I am saying you are.
You are saying Africans are thick if you think they have an IQ of 59. Do you know what that level of IQ means? It sounds like you don't.
Your level of IQ is relevant to these discussions because you time and time again show yourself to be stupid by the contents of the post. It is a good job you aren't in Nepal because you would drag their results down even further.
Yes you are saying raw IQ measures are racist but just throwing that accusation onto me.
As you have consistently made clear you have an ideological agenda against raw IQ. For you there is no such thing.
Yes you can continue to be as rude and patronising as you are because you have no evidence to dispute the core raw IQ differences other than rudeness and insult
Ok try this one. The Nepal IQ figure is for child somewhere greater than 2 year old but less than a 7 year old or verging on severe mental disabilty. Do you think that is correct? Clearly that is nonsense but that is what your table told you and that is what you apparently believe so yes you are a racist if you believe certain foreigners are that stupid.
Re this ideological agenda I supposedly have. Do you think I have been lying then about my extensive involvement in IQ tests? I repeat again it is only your ignorant use of the data I object to not IQ test themselves used in the proper context.
Boris Johnson is to face a vote on whether he should be investigated over claims he misled the Commons about partygate, The Times has learnt.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, is expected to grant opposition parties’ request for a vote on Thursday on whether to refer Johnson to the privileges committee for an inquiry.
This morning a cabinet minister compared Johnson’s fine for breaking lockdown rules with a speeding ticket as the government tried to downplay the seriousness of the offence. A senior Conservative backbencher said that MPs were “waiting to see what happens” before deciding whether Johnson should remain as leader.
While the government is likely to whip MPs to oppose the motion, it will force MPs to stick by the prime minister publicly or risk an investigation by the privileges committee, led by Labour’s Chris Bryant.
It's almost as if we have an opposition again. Makes me all nostalgic.
If only they'd bothered to oppose the government when it mattered during the pandemic over its reckless powergrabs and misuse of public funds, rather than over trivial parking ticket misdemaneours years later.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Only to you, Pet, only to you.
When scan reading I noted two posts - one on a Penis Size by country survey, and another this intelligence by country and then what even is intelligence debate.
Happily nobody has asked if there is a correlation between the two.
Not yet. I'm waiting for penis girth by GDP.
Somewhat characteristically for PB, the women get left out ...
To tilt the thread away from the unhappy topic of IQ/race/etc, if you're into the vaginas of unique spiders in Romanian caves - and who isn't? - this is quite the thread
"A cave spider, presumably a high-level predator. This paper's author is awfully preoccupied with the spider's vagina. He describes it in agonizing detail, then proceeds to include five pictures of it in the paper, followed by a single low-quality image of the spider itself 😐"
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Because an IQ test is not a test of intelligence, its a test of intelligence within an educational paradigm.
IQ tests are fundamentally flawed comparing across nations, anyone who understands anything about them understands that.
Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.
'Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.'
So we may as well scrap exams then
Why?
Exams are not a measure of intelligence, nor are they intended to be. That's not what they're there for.
Anyone who thought an exam was an objective measurement of intelligence is pretty damned ignorant.
Not exactly but Chinese pupils also get the highest average GCSE results in the UK, they of course are East Asian
Which just may have something to do with the culture and amount of studying those kids did.
Those kids will have studied and worked hard to get their results, not just rocked up on the day and relied upon their genetics to see them through.
That's pretty much how it worked when I was a kid in the East End, except the two relevant groups were Gentiles and Jews. The Grammar School I went to had a strict policy of accepting 50% of each. Streaming began after first year exams, which were effectively IQ Tests. I got into the Alpha stream as one of six Gentiles, the other 26 in the class were Jews. The Sixth form was almost entirely Jewish, the Gentiles having mostly left at the end of the fifth form, the earliest possible exit date.
It was obvious that the acedamic success of the Jewish boys largely reflected conditions at home and educational values in the families. Everyone knew that. One would hesitate however to categorise them all as especially 'intelligent'. Some could barely tie their laces. They knew how to get the grades though, and academically that was all that mattered.
What does this show? Not much, I think, apart from the truism that there is more to intelligence than exam results and that although IQ might be a handy concept in the right hands it should be interpreted prudently, intelligently even, if it is not to be a hindrance rather than a help.
Btw, in physical endeavors, matters were reversed. The school soccer team seldom had more than one or two Jewish players. It wasn't because they didn't like football.
Was the local population at child level 50:50 to begin with?
Coincidentally reading Barbara Hale J's memoirs. She was commenting that when she were a lass there were so many more grammar school places for boys than girls in the North Riding that it was much more difficult for a girl to get a grammar place just because of that.
UK economy forecast to be slowest growing in the G7 next year (2023) at 1.2%, by the IMF, and no longer top performer this year, after significant downgrades to growth, though was last year in initial post pandemic bounceback.
To tilt the thread away from the unhappy topic of IQ/race/etc, if you're into the vaginas of unique spiders in Romanian caves - and who isn't? - this is quite the thread
"A cave spider, presumably a high-level predator. This paper's author is awfully preoccupied with the spider's vagina. He describes it in agonizing detail, then proceeds to include five pictures of it in the paper, followed by a single low-quality image of the spider itself 😐"
Arthropods, in particular, tend to make sure they are mating with the right species by fairly definite plug and socket means, as well as various rather horrible tools to hold on, scrape out the rival's leavings, and so on. It can be quite hard to tell species apart till you get to their penes. So it's quite common to find entomologists carefully dissecting out the naughty bits of a flea and spreading them out in their glory to study them properly.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
I stopped at "There is no such thing as race"
lol
There is no scientific definition of race. It's a cultural construct, impossible to pin down objectively. Think of it as analogous to your various personae.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Your problem is seriously this: you have never been to the third world, never left Europe except on the Holy Land tourist trail, and therefore have not the faintest inkling of how poor the truly poor are and consequently of the enormity of the gap between Nepali vs Japanese schools.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
I have never denied there may be differences. I was simply pointing out the IQ results you and @hyufd were useless in identifying any differences because of so many other variables. You do realise that @HYUFD has admitted that he believes that the IQ results for much of Africa are as published on that list. That puts most Africans at the level of not being able to tie their shoe laces. Do you want to be associated with that?
I have read widely in this area and I agree with you: a lot of those scores for 3rd World/Global South countries are extremely dubious, if not offensive. They come mainly from the work of Richard Lynn at Ulster University. I have encountered Lynn and - how can I phrase this without troubling the libel lawyers and Our Genial Host? - he's probably one of the few people who might actually benefit from a bit of Critical Race Theory
eg He sometimes eagerly seizes on tiny ancient tests done once in a primitive village and applies this to an entire nation. Ludicrous and probably harmful and one wonders at the motivation
On the other hand, I do believe there are some average variations between races - just as with height, weight, speed, hormones, every other human attribute. They are all evolved, and all evolved slightly differently. I just do no understand why intelligence should be uniquely non-susceptible to different evolutionary pressures. I also find the data on Ashkenazi Jews pretty startling and compelling, and born out by their extraordinary success in the arts, science, chess, finance, etc - a fifth of all Nobel Prizes won by 0.2% of the global population??
This is a subject which has to be handled extremely carefully as it can easily lead to direct, overt racism, and generally it is best not discussed at all, unless it is essential. But nor should the science be suppressed and ignored
It is tricky. It was maybe easier in the day when scientists would talk about really controversial topics in Latin, so only a few understood. Like Krafft Ebbing on sexual fetishes
@leon I agree with all of that except the Jewish bit. After you posted on this yesterday I read up on it. There are perfectly logical explanations given re the Nobel prizes. I'm not going to repeat them here but they were pretty easy to find, but related to the nature of migration to USA, Russia and Israel in 20th century.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Only to you, Pet, only to you.
When scan reading I noted two posts - one on a Penis Size by country survey, and another this intelligence by country and then what even is intelligence debate.
Happily nobody has asked if there is a correlation between the two.
Not yet. I'm waiting for penis girth by GDP.
Somewhat characteristically for PB, the women get left out ...
Remember: Macron outperformed polling in the 1st round, as he did in 2017. There's a big debate tomorrow and whilst there's no guarantee, last time it was the debate which cooked Le Pen.
I'm covered on everything above 55%. Hopefully won't come a cropper!
On topic: Frankly preposterous. It's must win for SKS and for SKS only.
And he will.
It’s not amazingly prosperous to analyse the boosterism Boris would get with a win. It’s a balanced header in what a win does to each side finishing on what punters, presumably Applicant, thinks will happen.
Another bit of analyse you a probably not going to like, all sorts of seats go on mid term by elections, but then switch back at the actual election. So what will the Labour win here really tell us? Even a whopper of a win does not change Starmer’s inherent vices in Charisma and Unlikability going into the actual general election.
Oh, of course Boris will get a big boost with a win, but that doesn't itself imply that a defeat will leave him in deep trouble.
This is not a symmetric byelection. Even without everything else that's been going on, for a mid term by-election gained by the government at the previous election, the opposition would be odds-on favourite. It's everything else that's going on that makes Labour an overwhelming favourite - therefore a Labour win is baked in and the result will be greeted generally with a "meh" (except for the Boris haters, of course) unless there's a total collapse. It's only if Labour fail to win that there will be a big story - and therefore the idea that it is "must win" for Boris is, I'm afraid, preposterous.
Your last paragraph is entirely right. A Labour win will tell us nothing other than it's a mid term by-election - unless there's a total Tory collapse.
So how to you define total Tory collapse there, for a result other than Meh.
Last votes and percentages are in the helpful header.
If we're being serious about it, one flaw with IQ tests is that they do sometimes require knowledge, which is contrary to the attempted measure (that being reasoning ability, not learned knowledge).
For those wondering, I did once take an IQ test.
I passed. It was very impressive.
In my experience the people who believe in the infallibility of IQ tests also believe in the infallibility of lie detectors.
For the record I’ve obtained very high IQ test results and passed several lie detector tests when I’ve lied through my teeth.
Can I shut down this argument on IQ by reminding everyone that the creator of Mrs Brown's Boys has an IQ of 153 and is a member of MENSA?
So it's clearly all bollocks...
I don't know, there is certain amount of genius being able to spin such absolute tripe into making oneself a multi-millionaire out of it and still to this day able to convince the BBC to keep shelling out to make it.
Purports to be a fair representation of the Mensa test, which Mensa won't itself give you. Less insultingly easy than the taster on the Mensa website, and tightly constrained for time. Basically English language comprehension and mental arithmetic, both eminently improvable by practice
OK that was stressful. Was listening to a presentation (excuses, excuses I know) over Zoom and didn't finish. Got 84% which officially makes me brighter than @HYUFD. Kidding. It is uncertain.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Your problem is seriously this: you have never been to the third world, never left Europe except on the Holy Land tourist trail, and therefore have not the faintest inkling of how poor the truly poor are and consequently of the enormity of the gap between Nepali vs Japanese schools.
Yet even in the UK and other developed nations when immigrants of different ethnicities are on an equal footing living in a richer and developed nation, East Asians still get the highest exam results or SAT scores and still have the highest average raw IQ
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
I'm not saying IQ measures are racist. I am saying you are.
You are saying Africans are thick if you think they have an IQ of 59. Do you know what that level of IQ means? It sounds like you don't.
Your level of IQ is relevant to these discussions because you time and time again show yourself to be stupid by the contents of the post. It is a good job you aren't in Nepal because you would drag their results down even further.
Yes you are saying raw IQ measures are racist but just throwing that accusation onto me.
As you have consistently made clear you have an ideological agenda against raw IQ. For you there is no such thing.
Yes you can continue to be as rude and patronising as you are because you have no evidence to dispute the core raw IQ differences other than rudeness and insult
Ok try this one. The Nepal IQ figure is for child somewhere greater than 2 year old but less than a 7 year old or verging on severe mental disabilty. Do you think that is correct? Clearly that is nonsense but that is what your table told you and that is what you apparently believe so yes you are a racist if you believe certain foreigners are that stupid.
Re this ideological agenda I supposedly have. Do you think I have been lying then about my extensive involvement in IQ tests? I repeat again it is only your ignorant use of the data I object to not IQ test themselves used in the proper context.
You have an ideological objection to evidence of raw IQ test differences that is clear regardless of whether you might occasionally use IQ tests for individuals in recruitment or not
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
I stopped at "There is no such thing as race"
lol
There is no scientific definition of race. It's a cultural construct, impossible to pin down objectively. Think of it as analogous to your various personae.
Musing on this. How do you define race? If you view the human species is it only one, or would biologists split it into sub species? Proper objective analysis of skeletal features etc.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
I stopped at "There is no such thing as race"
lol
There is no scientific definition of race. It's a cultural construct, impossible to pin down objectively. Think of it as analogous to your various personae.
(Edit) Note ... bondegezou: "There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view..." Leon: "I stopped at 'there is no such thing as race' ... LOL"
Remember: Macron outperformed polling in the 1st round, as he did in 2017. There's a big debate tomorrow and whilst there's no guarantee, last time it was the debate which cooked Le Pen.
I'm covered on everything above 55%. Hopefully won't come a cropper!
By the way, my point here is that 56% should be Evens, arguably closer to 58.5%. The markets therefore represent value.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Because an IQ test is not a test of intelligence, its a test of intelligence within an educational paradigm.
IQ tests are fundamentally flawed comparing across nations, anyone who understands anything about them understands that.
Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.
'Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.'
So we may as well scrap exams then
Why?
Exams are not a measure of intelligence, nor are they intended to be. That's not what they're there for.
Anyone who thought an exam was an objective measurement of intelligence is pretty damned ignorant.
Not exactly but Chinese pupils also get the highest average GCSE results in the UK, they of course are East Asian
Which just may have something to do with the culture and amount of studying those kids did.
Those kids will have studied and worked hard to get their results, not just rocked up on the day and relied upon their genetics to see them through.
That's pretty much how it worked when I was a kid in the East End, except the two relevant groups were Gentiles and Jews. The Grammar School I went to had a strict policy of accepting 50% of each. Streaming began after first year exams, which were effectively IQ Tests. I got into the Alpha stream as one of six Gentiles, the other 26 in the class were Jews. The Sixth form was almost entirely Jewish, the Gentiles having mostly left at the end of the fifth form, the earliest possible exit date.
It was obvious that the acedamic success of the Jewish boys largely reflected conditions at home and educational values in the families. Everyone knew that. One would hesitate however to categorise them all as especially 'intelligent'. Some could barely tie their laces. They knew how to get the grades though, and academically that was all that mattered.
What does this show? Not much, I think, apart from the truism that there is more to intelligence than exam results and that although IQ might be a handy concept in the right hands it should be interpreted prudently, intelligently even, if it is not to be a hindrance rather than a help.
Btw, in physical endeavors, matters were reversed. The school soccer team seldom had more than one or two Jewish players. It wasn't because they didn't like football.
Was the local population at child level 50:50 to begin with?
Coincidentally reading Barbara Hale J's memoirs. She was commenting that when she were a lass there were so many more grammar school places for boys than girls in the North Riding that it was much more difficult for a girl to get a grammar place just because of that.
Definitely not!
To the best of my recollection there were no Jewish boys at my primary School, which was in Hackney Wick where there were very few Jewish families. The Grammar School was in Clapton, where there were more Jewish families, and drew heavily on the populations of Stamford Hill and Springfield Park which were famously Jewish areas.
If the headmaster had been selecting on merit, 80% of the intake would have been Jewish. The 50/50 rule was a reflection of his desire to balance the religious quotas and avoid strife.
I should add that for the most part you didn't know who was Jewish and who not. Anti-semitism was non-existent and simply would not have been tolerated.
Grammar Schools for girls seem to have been fairly abundant in the area and I do not recall any girl who passed the 11+ having any difficulty finding a place.
Off topic, but just noticed EC is calling the new seat of Earley and Woodley (Berkshire, no me neither), as a dead heat! Wasn't the kind of area you'd expect Labour to be anywhere near, as it contains only 2 Reading wards. Sign of re-alignment?
More on the Labour motion. It has to be tabled by tomorrow afternoon. Will focus on referral to the Privileges Committee, which interestingly has the power to ask for reports (inc. Gray) and photos as evidence. It can recommend action to House when investigation concludes.
Could be tricky for Con MPs, many of whom are uncertain about how they’ll feel if PM receives further fines (understand whips have priced in another 2/3). If they all vote against - no action. Even Lab sources believe this is most likely at the moment but still statement to go…
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
Because an IQ test is not a test of intelligence, its a test of intelligence within an educational paradigm.
IQ tests are fundamentally flawed comparing across nations, anyone who understands anything about them understands that.
Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.
'Height, weight etc can be objectively measured, intelligence can't.'
So we may as well scrap exams then
Why?
Exams are not a measure of intelligence, nor are they intended to be. That's not what they're there for.
Anyone who thought an exam was an objective measurement of intelligence is pretty damned ignorant.
Not exactly but Chinese pupils also get the highest average GCSE results in the UK, they of course are East Asian
Which just may have something to do with the culture and amount of studying those kids did.
Those kids will have studied and worked hard to get their results, not just rocked up on the day and relied upon their genetics to see them through.
That's pretty much how it worked when I was a kid in the East End, except the two relevant groups were Gentiles and Jews. The Grammar School I went to had a strict policy of accepting 50% of each. Streaming began after first year exams, which were effectively IQ Tests. I got into the Alpha stream as one of six Gentiles, the other 26 in the class were Jews. The Sixth form was almost entirely Jewish, the Gentiles having mostly left at the end of the fifth form, the earliest possible exit date.
It was obvious that the acedamic success of the Jewish boys largely reflected conditions at home and educational values in the families. Everyone knew that. One would hesitate however to categorise them all as especially 'intelligent'. Some could barely tie their laces. They knew how to get the grades though, and academically that was all that mattered.
What does this show? Not much, I think, apart from the truism that there is more to intelligence than exam results and that although IQ might be a handy concept in the right hands it should be interpreted prudently, intelligently even, if it is not to be a hindrance rather than a help.
Btw, in physical endeavors, matters were reversed. The school soccer team seldom had more than one or two Jewish players. It wasn't because they didn't like football.
Was the local population at child level 50:50 to begin with?
Coincidentally reading Barbara Hale J's memoirs. She was commenting that when she were a lass there were so many more grammar school places for boys than girls in the North Riding that it was much more difficult for a girl to get a grammar place just because of that.
Definitely not!
To the best of my recollection there were no Jewish boys at my primary School, which was in Hackney Wick where there were very few Jewish families. The Grammar School was in Clapton, where there were more Jewish families, and drew heavily on the populations of Stamford Hill and Springfield Park which were famously Jewish areas.
If the headmaster had been selecting on merit, 80% of the intake would have been Jewish. The 50/50 rule was a reflection of his desire to balance the religious quotas and avoid strife.
I should add that for the most part you didn't know who was Jewish and who not. Anti-semitism was non-existent and simply would not have been tolerated.
Grammar Schools for girls seem to have been fairly abundant in the area and I do not recall any girl who passed the 11+ having any difficulty finding a place.
Emmanuel Macron is abolishing the diplomatic corps and replacing it with a system of political appointments. Very strange timing and he's been attacked from across the political spectrum. Le Pen says she will reverse the decision.
Still way short of the Black Swan Pen needs to turn this around.
I am still a bit worried though, are we looking at widening polls but still a hidden larger than usual sack of don’t know likely abstain ready for late manoeuvres.
What this has given us on our media is more exposure to Le Pen speeches and policy, and there is a definite undercurrent of something very wrong lurking beneath them, like when the wrong sort of people were taking over the ministry of magic.
Two Concerns with that:
1 - A French President gathering even *more* power to himself.
2 - Macron just sacked his 2020 appointee as Head of MiIitary Intelligence, Eric Vidaud, who told him that Russia would not invade Ukraine
Which suggests that appointing personal appointees is not part of Macron's core skillset.
Not sure of either of those. Balls seems more at ease with himself out of politics. And Blair? Really? Nothing to achieve, and still hated by many. Far better to find a fresh, young optomistic candidate who connects with the electorate.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Your problem is seriously this: you have never been to the third world, never left Europe except on the Holy Land tourist trail, and therefore have not the faintest inkling of how poor the truly poor are and consequently of the enormity of the gap between Nepali vs Japanese schools.
Yet even in the UK and other developed nations when immigrants of different ethnicities are on an equal footing living in a richer and developed nation, East Asians still get the highest exam results or SAT scores and still have the highest average raw IQ
Because of different cultural emphases on the value of and approach to education.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
I have never denied there may be differences. I was simply pointing out the IQ results you and @hyufd were useless in identifying any differences because of so many other variables. You do realise that @HYUFD has admitted that he believes that the IQ results for much of Africa are as published on that list. That puts most Africans at the level of not being able to tie their shoe laces. Do you want to be associated with that?
I have read widely in this area and I agree with you: a lot of those scores for 3rd World/Global South countries are extremely dubious, if not offensive. They come mainly from the work of Richard Lynn at Ulster University. I have encountered Lynn and - how can I phrase this without troubling the libel lawyers and Our Genial Host? - he's probably one of the few people who might actually benefit from a bit of Critical Race Theory
eg He sometimes eagerly seizes on tiny ancient tests done once in a primitive village and applies this to an entire nation. Ludicrous and probably harmful and one wonders at the motivation
On the other hand, I do believe there are some average variations between races - just as with height, weight, speed, hormones, every other human attribute. They are all evolved, and all evolved slightly differently. I just do no understand why intelligence should be uniquely non-susceptible to different evolutionary pressures. I also find the data on Ashkenazi Jews pretty startling and compelling, and born out by their extraordinary success in the arts, science, chess, finance, etc - a fifth of all Nobel Prizes won by 0.2% of the global population??
This is a subject which has to be handled extremely carefully as it can easily lead to direct, overt racism, and generally it is best not discussed at all, unless it is essential. But nor should the science be suppressed and ignored
It is tricky. It was maybe easier in the day when scientists would talk about really controversial topics in Latin, so only a few understood. Like Krafft Ebbing on sexual fetishes
@leon I agree with all of that except the Jewish bit. After you posted on this yesterday I read up on it. There are perfectly logical explanations given re the Nobel prizes. I'm not going to repeat them here but they were pretty easy to find, but related to the nature of migration to USA, Russia and Israel in 20th century.
No, the reasons for high Ashkenazi IQ go back to multiple things, like marriage customs, long before then: the most prized individuals in the community were the rabbis and scholars, they got the pick of the wives and had the most kids. A eugenic policy that encouraged higher IQ over time
Also it has been theorized that the persecution of Jews (dating from the Romans at least) has acted as another evolutionary pressure, only the smarter Jews survived and prospered
And so on, and so forth
And that is my last comment on this subject for today, it really can veer into unsavoury places very quickly
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
I stopped at "There is no such thing as race"
lol
There is no scientific definition of race. It's a cultural construct, impossible to pin down objectively. Think of it as analogous to your various personae.
Musing on this. How do you define race? If you view the human species is it only one, or would biologists split it into sub species? Proper objective analysis of skeletal features etc.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Bit difficult to do an IQ test if you can't read ...
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Hmmmm....
1) Trees don't lie 2) Trees don't steal 3) Trees don't start wars
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
I have never denied there may be differences. I was simply pointing out the IQ results you and @hyufd were useless in identifying any differences because of so many other variables. You do realise that @HYUFD has admitted that he believes that the IQ results for much of Africa are as published on that list. That puts most Africans at the level of not being able to tie their shoe laces. Do you want to be associated with that?
I have read widely in this area and I agree with you: a lot of those scores for 3rd World/Global South countries are extremely dubious, if not offensive. They come mainly from the work of Richard Lynn at Ulster University. I have encountered Lynn and - how can I phrase this without troubling the libel lawyers and Our Genial Host? - he's probably one of the few people who might actually benefit from a bit of Critical Race Theory
eg He sometimes eagerly seizes on tiny ancient tests done once in a primitive village and applies this to an entire nation. Ludicrous and probably harmful and one wonders at the motivation
On the other hand, I do believe there are some average variations between races - just as with height, weight, speed, hormones, every other human attribute. They are all evolved, and all evolved slightly differently. I just do no understand why intelligence should be uniquely non-susceptible to different evolutionary pressures. I also find the data on Ashkenazi Jews pretty startling and compelling, and born out by their extraordinary success in the arts, science, chess, finance, etc - a fifth of all Nobel Prizes won by 0.2% of the global population??
This is a subject which has to be handled extremely carefully as it can easily lead to direct, overt racism, and generally it is best not discussed at all, unless it is essential. But nor should the science be suppressed and ignored
It is tricky. It was maybe easier in the day when scientists would talk about really controversial topics in Latin, so only a few understood. Like Krafft Ebbing on sexual fetishes
@leon I agree with all of that except the Jewish bit. After you posted on this yesterday I read up on it. There are perfectly logical explanations given re the Nobel prizes. I'm not going to repeat them here but they were pretty easy to find, but related to the nature of migration to USA, Russia and Israel in 20th century.
No, the reasons for high Ashkenazi IQ go back to multiple things, like marriage customs, long before then: the most prized individuals in the community were the rabbis and scholars, they got the pick of the wives and had the most kids. A eugenic policy that encouraged higher IQ over time
Also it has been theorized that the persecution of Jews (dating from the Romans at least) has acted as another evolutionary pressure, only the smarter Jews survived and prospered
And so on, and so forth
And that is my last comment on this subject for today, it really can veer into unsavoury places very quickly
It seems quite obvious to me that because at a moment's notice Jews could be dispossessed or expelled by whichever King, Emperor, parliament, or Pharaoh was presiding over them then they focused on skills of the mind rather than body. You can take a trained legal mind with you wherever you go but can't do the same with a chariot repair workshop.
A phenomenon that didn't stop until, well, certainly the 1930s.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
And yet, everyone accepts that races vary by height, weight, athleticism, skin colour, hair colour, stoutness, susceptibility to certain diseases (cf Sickle Cell in Africa, and Cystic Fibrosis in Celtic northwest Europe); heck, they even vary by penis size and maybe personality.
It seems odd that we accept that every single evolved human attribute varies a little or a lot between (and within) races, apart from just ONE - intelligence, which is uniquely the same for all races, and any IQ test that says it isn't equal - which they all do - is racist and must be ignored
Confusing
It's probably a sign of low IQ to try and engage Leon in rational discourse, but... We know that genetically humans are all very, very similar. We are a very homogenous species: not quite up there with cheetahs, but more homogeneous than most. There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view. IQ, if such a thing exists (cf. debates about "g"), is a result of a very broad range of different genes and of one's environment. Your examples are generally based on a single mutation (sickle cell, cystic fibrosis) or a small number of genes (skin colour, hair colour, penis size, height), and less on environment. It is easier to get variation by ancestry when the thing being measured depends on a small number of genes than when it depends on a large number of genes or on a large number of genes and environmental factors: it's the central limit theorem in action.
I stopped at "There is no such thing as race"
lol
There is no scientific definition of race. It's a cultural construct, impossible to pin down objectively. Think of it as analogous to your various personae.
Musing on this. How do you define race? If you view the human species is it only one, or would biologists split it into sub species? Proper objective analysis of skeletal features etc.
I don't, as it's a futile exercise.
So should we stop all measuring of achievement by race (big companies workforces), health outcomes, no more race crimes? Black men are twice as likely as white in the U.K. to develop prostate cancer. Not sure why, but worth investigating.
Between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, which do Britons most associate with lower taxes?
Labour: 36% Conservative: 16% Neither: 29%
Respondents aged 35-to-44 are most likely to say Labour stands for lower taxes (49%)
Game. Over.
Maybe this is the answer to the IQ debate? The UK population are way thicker than we think.
Or way more intelligent. Tories are failing this country and they are economically clueless.
All of that might be true without persuading me for one moment that Labour's answer to pretty much everything is not higher public spending.
A Labour party committed to cutting bloated bureaucracies would be interesting but is so far fetched as to be not worth wasting time on.
You see what you want to see. Labour's answer to everything is not spend more.
The problem is evidence shows otherwise. Last time Labour, Brown was the absolute worst for picking the option that resulted in more red tape. How we got to a stage where people on £50k a year were filling in forms to get tax credits is just mental. Just alter the tax threshold / rate if you think they should be getting some sort of "rebate".
Other than the characteristic "it would be funny" response from DuraAce (who also supported Trump's election bid), @MrEd and his fellow Le Pen Fanciers are being remarkably quiet today on their claims that their girl is a winner.
On topic: Frankly preposterous. It's must win for SKS and for SKS only.
And he will.
It’s not amazingly prosperous to analyse the boosterism Boris would get with a win. It’s a balanced header in what a win does to each side finishing on what punters, presumably Applicant, thinks will happen.
Another bit of analyse you a probably not going to like, all sorts of seats go on mid term by elections, but then switch back at the actual election. So what will the Labour win here really tell us? Even a whopper of a win does not change Starmer’s inherent vices in Charisma and Unlikability going into the actual general election.
Oh, of course Boris will get a big boost with a win, but that doesn't itself imply that a defeat will leave him in deep trouble.
This is not a symmetric byelection. Even without everything else that's been going on, for a mid term by-election gained by the government at the previous election, the opposition would be odds-on favourite. It's everything else that's going on that makes Labour an overwhelming favourite - therefore a Labour win is baked in and the result will be greeted generally with a "meh" (except for the Boris haters, of course) unless there's a total collapse. It's only if Labour fail to win that there will be a big story - and therefore the idea that it is "must win" for Boris is, I'm afraid, preposterous.
Your last paragraph is entirely right. A Labour win will tell us nothing other than it's a mid term by-election - unless there's a total Tory collapse.
So how to you define total Tory collapse there, for a result other than Meh.
Last votes and percentages are in the helpful header.
Looking at past results, 35% seems to be a reasonable threshold to denote the national picture - but then, factoring in the fact that it's a mid term by election, any result in the 30s would fall within reasonable expectations.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Hmmmm....
1) Trees don't lie 2) Trees don't steal 3) Trees don't start wars
Sound like fairly ideal leaders, really.
Bit slow to react to change, though, and deeply attached to their home soil. Nature's conservatives ?
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Bit difficult to do an IQ test if you can't read ...
Not just Nepal. 1 in 6 people in the UK are below the reading level of a 9-year old. That is around six or seven million adults. Some of these people may be quite intelligent, but for whatever reason were not encouraged to read.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Hmmmm....
1) Trees don't lie 2) Trees don't steal 3) Trees don't start wars
Sound like fairly ideal leaders, really.
Bit slow to react to change, though, and deeply attached to their home soil. Nature's conservatives ?
But on what basis? on the basis everyday people are suffering hideous energy and food costs, and crisis in their household budgets? Wouldn’t you rather smaller leads, on basis electorate feel it’s time for change, and no hideous credit crisis for voters? Following on from high energy bills is predicted low growth with high inflation - stagflation, and quite possible now a recession, meaning decent jobs lost and decent businesses lost forever. It would be preferable to achieve change of government without needing this degree of pain on our country?
Yesterday was the single biggest day for electoral enrolments in Australian history Earlier today the Australian Electoral Commission said they had a huge day yesterday with everyone racing to enrol (or update their details) ahead of the deadline at 8pm local time.
Well, now the figures are in and the AEC says yesterday was the single biggest day for electoral enrolment in Australian history, with 214,000 enrolment applications.
According to the AEC, that means 96 per cent of Australia's eligible population are now enrolled to vote.
"The state of the roll is a modern democratic miracle, and not something you see in most places worldwide," the AEC said on Twitter.
Who is going to be in the least bit surprised if NI++ (stupidly introduced by Sunak) at the end of a 5 years of a Labour government in 2028/29 has magically required reasons to increase it.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Bit difficult to do an IQ test if you can't read ...
Not just Nepal. 1 in 6 people in the UK are below the reading level of a 9-year old. That is around six or seven million adults. Some of these people may be quite intelligent, but for whatever reason were not encouraged to read.
I've heard it said, by education professionals, that a you can accurately predict the academic trajectory of a child, with considerable accuracy, by whether the parents read to them (or not) when they were small.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Hmmmm....
1) Trees don't lie 2) Trees don't steal 3) Trees don't start wars
Who is going to be in the least bit surprised if NI++ (stupidly introduced by Sunak) at the end of a 5 years of a Labour government in 2028/29 has magically required reasons to increase it.
Top drawer whataboutery Francis! That's new ground even for PB I think – Whatabout Futures.
"Whatabout something that hasn't happened but might hypothetically happen under Labour at some undefined point in the future?"
My guess if we get a Labour government in 2024, we will see sort of wealth tax, increase on NI++ for higher earners, plus a re-inflating of tax credit system (set against plenty of fiscal drag, so people are filling in form to get money they used to already get).
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Hmmmm....
1) Trees don't lie 2) Trees don't steal 3) Trees don't start wars
Sound like fairly ideal leaders, really.
There are six parties in the Nepali Parliament. Three Communist (including the remarkably named Maoist Centre Party), one democratic socialist and two social democratic. Quite a challenge for PB Tories there.
On topic: Frankly preposterous. It's must win for SKS and for SKS only.
And he will.
It’s not amazingly prosperous to analyse the boosterism Boris would get with a win. It’s a balanced header in what a win does to each side finishing on what punters, presumably Applicant, thinks will happen.
Another bit of analyse you a probably not going to like, all sorts of seats go on mid term by elections, but then switch back at the actual election. So what will the Labour win here really tell us? Even a whopper of a win does not change Starmer’s inherent vices in Charisma and Unlikability going into the actual general election.
Oh, of course Boris will get a big boost with a win, but that doesn't itself imply that a defeat will leave him in deep trouble.
This is not a symmetric byelection. Even without everything else that's been going on, for a mid term by-election gained by the government at the previous election, the opposition would be odds-on favourite. It's everything else that's going on that makes Labour an overwhelming favourite - therefore a Labour win is baked in and the result will be greeted generally with a "meh" (except for the Boris haters, of course) unless there's a total collapse. It's only if Labour fail to win that there will be a big story - and therefore the idea that it is "must win" for Boris is, I'm afraid, preposterous.
Your last paragraph is entirely right. A Labour win will tell us nothing other than it's a mid term by-election - unless there's a total Tory collapse.
So how to you define total Tory collapse there, for a result other than Meh.
Last votes and percentages are in the helpful header.
Looking at past results, 35% seems to be a reasonable threshold to denote the national picture - but then, factoring in the fact that it's a mid term by election, any result in the 30s would fall within reasonable expectations.
Okay, thank you. We have some sort of fair measurement then. 47 to 30% is Meh. Below 30% a disappointing swing from Conservatives to Labour maybe indicative of something going on that presages the general election.
Other than the characteristic "it would be funny" response from DuraAce (who also supported Trump's election bid), @MrEd and his fellow Le Pen Fanciers are being remarkably quiet today on their claims that their girl is a winner.
Have they lost the faith??
We're surely due another Le Pen poll scare between now and the second round. Probably just as well to avoid complacency setting in among the low inclination voters.
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Bit difficult to do an IQ test if you can't read ...
My apologies everyone for this, but really @HYUFD who complains about me continuing arguments has posted a reply to me a full hour after the new thread opened. Talk about pot and kettle. So I'm not letting him off the hook.
@hyufd seems to think that because he posts something from the internet it is correct. Quote: 'No my facts were absolutely right. I posted the IQ data.' Yes you did BUT as everyone has been telling you it is not meaningful to compare countries because of other variables without taking them into account.
He also said: You quite clearly do have an ideological objection to raw IQ test results as you have spent most of this thread whinging about them. Again no I am not as I have made clear over and over again. I only object to the misuse of the data which is what you always do because you are as thick as a plank.
You also said 'The difference between the average Japanese and Mali test results as I have already shown you is far to big to be bridged even with preparation and coaching'. Again I have explained this to you. My reference to coaching was in the UK/USA context of improving individual IQ results. The reason Mali results are so low is because of other variables primarily the complete lack of education compared to Japan. That is not the same as coaching, we are talking about a completely different society, 3rd world compared to 1st world.
OK so finally I will ask you for the umpteenth time do you really believe that the average Nepal IQ is really 43 and the average Mali IQ is really 59 because that is at the level of not being able to tie your shoe laces. Or is it because of other factors like lack of education.
If the latter then all of what you have posted is bollocks isn't it?
If the former then you are a racist if you think Africans are really this stupid.
I posted on the OLD thread not the new one, you have yet again decided to carry your post over to disrupt the new thread so here we go.
You have an ideological objection to IQ tests, hence you completely dismiss the fact that East Asian countries are over 50 IQ points higher than the lowest IQ nations (and also indeed higher than us). That is just a fact, instead all you can do is rant and rave in your usual pompous manner throwing accusations of racism about and accusing me of being thick because I do not agree with your ideological agenda which is that there is no such thing as raw IQ.
You also need to ask why some nations are 3rd world and some nations are very advanced 1st world like Japan? The answer may well be in part due to raw IQ but no again that has to be dismissed by you with a rant about racism.
There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!
a) You kept it going not me but I am stopping now because I know how it annoys everyone.
b) You said: 'There are schools in Nepal and Mali as much as there are schools in Japan after all!' You really are deluded aren't you. How on earth can you compare Mali and Nepal education with Japan?
c) You keep saying I have an ideological objection to IQ tests yet ignore the fact that I clearly don't and that they were integral to my work for many years and I used them repeated and was involved in their production. You are just bonkers.
d) So re your last paragraph you really DO think Africans are stupid so therefore you are a racist. I mean what other conclusion can one come to. Go on admit it you think black people are thick. Again I ask why do you think African Americans perform better than Africans if that is the case. They are after all the same people. Africans who suffer poverty do not do so because they are thick, and when rescued from poverty why do they suddenly perform better if you are correct.
It really is offensive if you think Africans are thick.
Also do you have any comprehension of what a score of 43 is? I wouldn't want someone with that IQ level taking me up Everest. But guess what people from Nepal aren't as stupid as you think.
One does wonder what your IQ level is.
a) You replied again on the previous thread, so I replied to you again. You then continued it onto this new thread rather than the old one.
b) Very easily. They both have schools which give pupils the opportunity to learn, I would not expect Malian and Nepali schools to be so crap in relation to Japanese schools as to be the sole reason for Japan's very high average IQ score in relation to them.
c) Clearly you do have an ideological objection to any notion of raw IQ, otherwise you would not have made umpteen posts saying how raw IQ measures are racist.
d) You just prove my point. Rather than look at the facts you just throw out accusations of racism. Even in developed nations we know full well East Asians get the best exam results when all racial backgrounds are on an equal footing.
It is you saying Africans are thick not me, saying Japan has a higher average IQ than African nations is not the same thing at all (you could equally say African nations produce more long distance Olympic gold medallists than Japan).
I have never pretended to be genius level IQ but what my IQ is is irrelevant to a discussion of a comparison of raw IQ scores between nations and ethnicities
If anyone else has experience of teaching in the Nepali education system feel free to correct me, but I am very ready to believe that their schools are so much worse than those in Japan that it would explain measured IQ levels easily.
So a 30 to 50 IQ points gap and gap in advancement of technology produced etc is entirely due to appallingly crap Nepalese schools then in relation to Japanese schools.
OK, it is a view
Having actually been to Nepal and to Japan, the difference in schooling is vast.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
They don't count. Not Tory voters.
Was in Nepal during a General Election. Due to widespread illiteracy they used Party symbols rather than names. Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
Hmmmm....
1) Trees don't lie 2) Trees don't steal 3) Trees don't start wars
Sound like fairly ideal leaders, really.
Bit slow to react to change, though, and deeply attached to their home soil. Nature's conservatives ?
Comments
As you have consistently made clear you have an ideological agenda against raw IQ. For you there is no such thing.
Yes you can continue to be as rude and patronising as you are because you have no evidence to dispute the core raw IQ differences other than rudeness and insult
@MrEd still backing her?
But international comparisons of this sort of thing is a mug's game - too many variables.
For those wondering, I did once take an IQ test.
I passed. It was very impressive.
lol
UK economy forecast to be slowest growing in the G7 next year (2023) at 1.2%, by the IMF, and no longer top performer this year, after significant downgrades to growth, though was last year in initial post pandemic bounceback.
Inflation forecast to be highest in G7.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1516406682129215489/photo/1
OK, it is a view
It was obvious that the acedamic success of the Jewish boys largely reflected conditions at home and educational values in the families. Everyone knew that. One would hesitate however to categorise them all as especially 'intelligent'. Some could barely tie their laces. They knew how to get the grades though, and academically that was all that mattered.
What does this show? Not much, I think, apart from the truism that there is more to intelligence than exam results and that although IQ might be a handy concept in the right hands it should be interpreted prudently, intelligently even, if it is not to be a hindrance rather than a help.
Btw, in physical endeavors, matters were reversed. The school soccer team seldom had more than one or two Jewish players. It wasn't because they didn't like football.
Re this ideological agenda I supposedly have. Do you think I have been lying then about my extensive involvement in IQ tests? I repeat again it is only your ignorant use of the data I object to not IQ test themselves used in the proper context.
"A cave spider, presumably a high-level predator. This paper's author is awfully preoccupied with the spider's vagina. He describes it in agonizing detail, then proceeds to include five pictures of it in the paper, followed by a single low-quality image of the spider itself 😐"
https://twitter.com/irrumabo_te/status/1516379332909936644?s=20&t=Dkw6pDyslkXKzrJrWRIPzw
Coincidentally reading Barbara Hale J's memoirs. She was commenting that when she were a lass there were so many more grammar school places for boys than girls in the North Riding that it was much more difficult for a girl to get a grammar place just because of that.
So it's clearly all bollocks...
P.S. No pedantry re: "World beating inflation" please. I know the US has been higher.
Arthropods, in particular, tend to make sure they are mating with the right species by fairly definite plug and socket means, as well as various rather horrible tools to hold on, scrape out the rival's leavings, and so on. It can be quite hard to tell species apart till you get to their penes. So it's quite common to find entomologists carefully dissecting out the naughty bits of a flea and spreading them out in their glory to study them properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/earth/bespoke/story/20140908-twisted-world-of-sexual-organs/index.html
It's a cultural construct, impossible to pin down objectively. Think of it as analogous to your various personae.
This is superb
https://twitter.com/Mr_Andrew_Fox/status/1516103697415262208?s=20&t=Dkw6pDyslkXKzrJrWRIPzw
ANOTHER poll putting Macron 56:44 ahead just out
https://www.opinion-way.com/fr/barometre-opinionway-kea-partners-election-presidentielle-2022
If you consider it a good bet that Macron will poll above 55% then there's money to be made here.
55-59.99% 7/4
60-64.99% 12/1 (in from 16/1)
65% + 40/1
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
Remember: Macron outperformed polling in the 1st round, as he did in 2017. There's a big debate tomorrow and whilst there's no guarantee, last time it was the debate which cooked Le Pen.
I'm covered on everything above 55%. Hopefully won't come a cropper!
Last votes and percentages are in the helpful header.
For the record I’ve obtained very high IQ test results and passed several lie detector tests when I’ve lied through my teeth.
Both are bollocks.
Nepal is a staggeringly poor country - they are short of everything. Even pencils. Quite a few schools are one room, without glass in the windows.....
At least HYUFD is honest about it.
even saying it was an outright bet not a value trade.
Your money still good?
Between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, which do Britons most associate with lower taxes?
Labour: 36%
Conservative: 16%
Neither: 29%
Respondents aged 35-to-44 are most likely to say Labour stands for lower taxes (49%)
Game. Over.
Note ... bondegezou: "There is no such thing as race from a biological point of view..."
Leon: "I stopped at 'there is no such thing as race' ... LOL"
And 12/1 above 60% should be a flutter.
To the best of my recollection there were no Jewish boys at my primary School, which was in Hackney Wick where there were very few Jewish families. The Grammar School was in Clapton, where there were more Jewish families, and drew heavily on the populations of Stamford Hill and Springfield Park which were famously Jewish areas.
If the headmaster had been selecting on merit, 80% of the intake would have been Jewish. The 50/50 rule was a reflection of his desire to balance the religious quotas and avoid strife.
I should add that for the most part you didn't know who was Jewish and who not. Anti-semitism was non-existent and simply would not have been tolerated.
Grammar Schools for girls seem to have been fairly abundant in the area and I do not recall any girl who passed the 11+ having any difficulty finding a place.
Wasn't the kind of area you'd expect Labour to be anywhere near, as it contains only 2 Reading wards. Sign of re-alignment?
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Earley and Woodley
The roaring twenties!
Tories shredding economic competence, Labour majority must now be a likely candidate for GE2024
Could be tricky for Con MPs, many of whom are uncertain about how they’ll feel if PM receives further fines (understand whips have priced in another 2/3). If they all vote against - no action. Even Lab sources believe this is most likely at the moment but still statement to go…
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1516412801778135045
1 - A French President gathering even *more* power to himself.
2 - Macron just sacked his 2020 appointee as Head of MiIitary Intelligence, Eric Vidaud, who told him that Russia would not invade Ukraine
Which suggests that appointing personal appointees is not part of Macron's core skillset.
As a Tottenham fan.
How terrible.
Also it has been theorized that the persecution of Jews (dating from the Romans at least) has acted as another evolutionary pressure, only the smarter Jews survived and prospered
And so on, and so forth
And that is my last comment on this subject for today, it really can veer into unsavoury places very quickly
Was taken aback to see Vote Tree! posters.
I have never understood what is the slightest bit 'rightwing' about putting money back into the pockets of working people.
Indeed, doing so should be a fundamental tenet of Labour politics.
1) Trees don't lie
2) Trees don't steal
3) Trees don't start wars
Sound like fairly ideal leaders, really.
A phenomenon that didn't stop until, well, certainly the 1930s.
A Labour party committed to cutting bloated bureaucracies would be interesting but is so far fetched as to be not worth wasting time on.
Black men are twice as likely as white in the U.K. to develop prostate cancer. Not sure why, but worth investigating.
Have they lost the faith??
Nature's conservatives ?
https://readingagency.org.uk/about/impact/002-reading-facts-1/
https://readabilityguidelines.co.uk/clear-language/low-literacy-users/
It is a national scandal.
Yesterday was the single biggest day for electoral enrolments in Australian history
Earlier today the Australian Electoral Commission said they had a huge day yesterday with everyone racing to enrol (or update their details) ahead of the deadline at 8pm local time.
Well, now the figures are in and the AEC says yesterday was the single biggest day for electoral enrolment in Australian history, with 214,000 enrolment applications.
According to the AEC, that means 96 per cent of Australia's eligible population are now enrolled to vote.
"The state of the roll is a modern democratic miracle, and not something you see in most places worldwide," the AEC said on Twitter.
We love to see it!
"Whatabout something that hasn't happened but might hypothetically happen under Labour at some undefined point in the future?"
Bravo.
Quite a challenge for PB Tories there.