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.
Pick two domestic cats at random. They will differ genetically more (on average) than two domestic dogs picked at random, even though two dogs will probably look less alike. (Phenotype is not always a good guide to genotype.) Pick two humans at random and we will differ genetically much less. Two cheetahs, exceedingly similar: they seem to have gone through a very recent population bottleneck.
We are the only subspecies remaining. Go back far enough and it was a different picture: Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores man, maybe more! Different species or subspecies of humans, with some gene flow between them. But it’s just H. sapiens sapiens left.
Of course, we’re not all identical: there is some variation, and some of that variation correlates with geography. But it’s not that all the genes vary together. You will see varying allele frequencies at different loci, but it’s not that all the White people have one set and all the East Asians have another and all the Africans have yet another. Those traditional racial categorisations don’t show up in the genetics. One allele will be common in the eastern Med, another around the Himalayas, and so on.
The genetic variation there is is mostly in Africa. Two people with an ancestry outside Africa are closer genetically (on average) than two people in Africa. If you absolutely insisted in using “races”, then there are multiple ones in Africa and the rest of us (European, Asian, Australasian, Native American) can all be lumped together.
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).
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?
Britain is a naturally Conservative country, unfortunately, so it takes some time for the electorate to be reminded why they shouldn't vote Tory.
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?"
Bravo.
It has happened, every single time Labour are in office.
Sunak is a disgrace copying Labour's policies in raising NI, but that doesn't mean that Labour would do otherwise, they never have.
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?"
Bravo.
Its not whataboutery. Sunak was stupid to introduce it both from the economics now (its a tax on jobs at a terrible time), but also terrible politics because it unlocks the cookie jar for those that always tempted that they just need to take a bit more to fund something worthy.
There is absolutely no way Labour will be cutting taxes if they get in.
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.
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
No, we wouldn't want that. As you say, people who are *very* interested in a possible racial dimension to raw intelligence - who read up on that aspect a lot and love to discuss it - are often seeking to validate some pretty dodgy views they hold.
Anyway, so a Nobel Prize for Giles Coren is surely only a matter of time.
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).
I refer you to my post made moments ago.
So I am not allowed to take my priors that every time Labour get in taxes go up and predict where they might be taking money from next.
I bet they stand on a similar promise to Boris no increase in IC, NI, VAT, but "harmless" windfall taxes and then we will see introduction of some sort of wealth tax under a similar guise, IHT to catch more people and the NI++ cookie jar will ultimately be too tempting.
Its smart politics, and will probably work not to scare the horses. But not only will there not be economic room to cut taxes, there is also something worthy that needs funding.
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 ...
It isn't at all difficult, actually. Standard IQ tests don't require reading.
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??
Did I say @Anabobazina I supported Le Pen? I said she was betting value.
For the record, I don't think her election would be good at all, especially with the Ukraine. However, it would serve Macron right for being such a tw*t.
As I've been accused in the past of trolling it's obvious that 'Applicant' works for the Conservative Party.
At least HYUFD is honest about it.
He'd obviously love to have his glans blanched by Johnson's farts but that doesn't mean he's a paid employee of the tory party.
LOL. Try reading my posts and understanding them. If I were in Wakefield I would be voting Labour unless they find a retread reject as their candidate.
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.
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.
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 spent much of my career in adult remedial literacy. I am rarely believed when I relate the average standard of reading ability. Employers in particular. They never quite twigged before why introducing "simplified" paperwork led to drops in productivity. I had to break it to them gently that a huge proportion of their workforce were functionally illiterate. They knew very well how to use the forms they'd always used. Change the wording or position of the field however...
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
That isn't too different to the migration point in the 20th century, particularly with 3 nations (USA/USSR/Israel) trying to attract the best and exploit those skills and to @TOPPING similar post on the subject. The prediction is that this phenomenon will die out and is doing so particularly as Nobel prizes often are for work decades old.
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.
Yes, I think so. Also to note (as a general principle) swing calculations shouldn't be taken entirely at face value because of the BXP factor.
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.
I sung to my son. I fear it might have had the opposite effect and out him off music for life.
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??
There’s another way of looking at the angle you are taking. Rather than crushed by her size of defeat last time, she partied, she loved the progress made, and she is absolutely going to love a 46-54 defeat as another huge stride forward making her a major player.
But there is a hideous undertones beneath everything she puts out and stands for - just like those hideous fascists in Peaky Blinders. Having pops at each other like you are trying to do here, I don’t think gets us closer to the answers we really need, what on earth is going on in France. Why is the mainstream middle gone? What on earth are the voters there thinking to flock to such extremes, with fantasy finance policies, uninspiring leaders, as Le Pen clearly is.
And whilst we are laughing at them, without even understanding it, could the same happen here?
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).
I hope so. But let's see what the manifesto has. They might play things safe if they have a lead going in. Just the remotest acquaintance with competence and integrity might be judged to be sufficient.
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.
I wood be happier with them than with Johnson.
But would they have enough branches to challenge for power?
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.
I would lean towards a high two party share like in Erdington (although maybe Yorkshire Party could hold their deposit on a good day, Greens possibly less likely) so I don't see a complete Tory collapse below about 35% as a worst case scenario which would be similar to the 34% they got in the 2015 GE.
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
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
You shouldn't have done. It was rather a good post (l know you didn't, just to clarify, as you seem to not know when I am being flippant sometimes)
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.
Sounds credible but I've actually heard the opposite. Well, not the opposite, that reading to a child hampers them, but that there isn't a correlation.
Hard to prove either way, I guess. How to isolate that variable?
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.
"3) Trees don't start wars"
Macbeth would like a word.
Lol.
Although obviously tree species actually do indulge in wars of several kinds.
Poisoning insects, poisoning other trees Stealing light from neighbours Attempting to colonise land Encouraging fires to kill off the opposition
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.
"3) Trees don't start wars"
Macbeth would like a word.
Lol.
Although obviously tree species actually do indulge in wars of several kinds.
Poisoning insects, poisoning other trees Stealing light from neighbours Attempting to colonise land Encouraging fires to kill off the opposition
etc etc
There is unrest in the forest Trouble with the trees For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas The trouble with the maples (And they're quite convinced they're right) They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade There is trouble in the forest And the creatures all have fled As the maples scream, "Oppression" And the oaks just shake their heads So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights They say, "The oaks are just too greedy We will make them give us light" Now there's no more oak oppression For they passed a noble law And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, axe, and saw
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
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.
Yes, I think so. Also to note (as a general principle) swing calculations shouldn't be taken entirely at face value because of the BXP factor.
Mike Smithson has said a few times, a crushing by election defeat I think Eastbourne, prompted the Tory Party to dump PM who had just delivered two landslide majorities depriving her chance to defend her majority. By your measurement a Tory drop from 47% into the 20’s heaps similar pressure on Boris.
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
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.
Yes, I think so. Also to note (as a general principle) swing calculations shouldn't be taken entirely at face value because of the BXP factor.
Mike Smithson has said a few times, a crushing by election defeat I think Eastbourne, prompted the Tory Party to dump PM who had just delivered two landslide majorities depriving her chance to defend her majority. By your measurement a Tory drop from 47% into the 20’s heaps similar pressure on Boris.
It absolutely would, not least because it would show they are losing to both Labour and the Lib Dems.
But that doesn't mean it's "must win" for Boris. It's not - a narrow defeat would be a relatively good result and a medium-sized defeat quite sustainable. It's SKS who must win.
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.
Don't give HYUFD ideas. He will only find some web site about black mens penis size and determine there is an inverse relationship to IQ and tell us it must be a fact cos it was on the internet.
“Painting of the orange cat Otto von Garfield, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Minister-President of Prussia. Depicted wearing a Prussian Pickelhaube and eating his favorite meal - lasagna.”
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
True, though it needn't have been a three term government.
So. Suppose the Conservatives do end up in opposition in 2024. Does the party seek to please itself, or please the voters it needs to win back? Only one strategy works, but the other one feels so good...
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).
I hope so. But let's see what the manifesto has. They might play things safe if they have a lead going in. Just the remotest acquaintance with competence and integrity might be judged to be sufficient.
Labour source: "Any Conservative MP considering voting to block this investigation would be voting for a cover up. They should reflect on the mess they got themselves into over Owen Paterson before falling into line."
Which is of course all part of the political strategy by Lab.
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?
Britain is a naturally Conservative country, unfortunately, so it takes some time for the electorate to be reminded why they shouldn't vote Tory.
But the Conservative Party is no longer Conservative. Fiscally it is opposite of conservatism. Right wing populism, short termist to extremes, built around the cult of a charismatic figurehead this is very different appeal than proper conservatism, thus repels conservative thinkers . For example, compare this cabinet to past Conservative governments - historically you would have the best people you could in there, regardless of the wing of the party or past remain support, not a zombie cabinet of brain dead praetorian guard around the glorious leader.
Just arrived in Roses and having a beer waiting for my new pal Enzio. I’ve rented an apartment at the west side of town that doesn’t have a sea view, but does seem to have a balcony over the canal there. I’m quite looking forward to seeing it!
I don't think it matters which party forms the next government in terms of tax. The politics on it is very clear and we'll follow the same basic trajectory regardless of which party is elected.
That trajectory is that the NHS & Social Care Levy will be increased (towards 10% over time) and the proceeds will be split between cuts to income tax, funding the long-term trend of increases to NHS spending, and miscellaneous pet projects.
This isn't a question of ideology, good governance, or economic efficiency. It's a very simple calculus that income tax is much more unpopular than an NHS levy.
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 spent much of my career in adult remedial literacy. I am rarely believed when I relate the average standard of reading ability. Employers in particular. They never quite twigged before why introducing "simplified" paperwork led to drops in productivity. I had to break it to them gently that a huge proportion of their workforce were functionally illiterate. They knew very well how to use the forms they'd always used. Change the wording or position of the field however...
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
True, though it needn't have been a three term government.
So. Suppose the Conservatives do end up in opposition in 2024. Does the party seek to please itself, or please the voters it needs to win back? Only one strategy works, but the other one feels so good...
A good question. The difference with 1997 is (a) Labour won't have anywhere near as big a majority, and (b) by the look of the polling CHB so approvingly posted, their voters will end up much more disappointed by an SKS first term than they were by Blair's first term.
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
Actually, we didn't elect a two term Labour Government in 1997 - we did so in 2001. I know that's rather pedantic, but still.
Strictly speaking, we've never elected a two term Labour government, as we give them a third term in 2005.
I'd suggest we elected a two term Labour Government in 2001 when we gave it a second term, and extended it to three terms in 2005. But I accept it's semantics.
Arguably we also did in 1966, albeit the first term was a short one, and 1950, albeit the second term was very short (Labour had a majority, though). It'd probably be courageous to count Feb-Oct 1974 as a term.
"I started using #dalle 10 days ago. For the past 4 days, I've had vivid dreams, which I haven't had since I was a kid. It's quite wonderful. Am I'm rewiring my visual cortex?"
I don't think it matters which party forms the next government in terms of tax. The politics on it is very clear and we'll follow the same basic trajectory regardless of which party is elected.
That trajectory is that the NHS & Social Care Levy will be increased (towards 10% over time) and the proceeds will be split between cuts to income tax, funding the long-term trend of increases to NHS spending, and miscellaneous pet projects.
This isn't a question of ideology, good governance, or economic efficiency. It's a very simple calculus that income tax is much more unpopular than an NHS levy.
Wealth tax is interesting though. Will Labour risk it at the GE?
If Labour is elected again I think it will be for a long period.
Demographics favour them and will do so the longer they are in office.
They need to start planning for what a Labour term would actually be like, and what would they do. For some reason known only to the general British public, the bar will always be set higher for Labour and the expectations steeper, therefore the threshold for disillusionment much easier to reach. People forgive the Tories a lot because the party has always been very adept, when in government, at scaring voters about the prospect of the alternative. Obviously easy when Corbyn was around but also managed under Ed Miliband.
Labour should therefore also be thinking about how it can improve its chances of a second term by getting people worried about a conservative government. "Privatising the NHS" isn't enough (though they should have a good opportunity to point to hospital waiting lists assuming they can get them down in 5 years). Nor will sleaze and lying because that will be associated in people's minds with a few individuals like Johnson, so some other residual bad memories that target the whole virus with a broader spectrum immune response might include:
- Prospect of more cuts in education, social care, policing - Don't believe their promises to cut tax, look at what they did last time - (if Labour can bring about a few improvements in cooperation with EU) back to holiday traffic jams and queues at passport control - Back to massive hikes in fuel and food prices
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).
I hope so. But let's see what the manifesto has. They might play things safe if they have a lead going in. Just the remotest acquaintance with competence and integrity might be judged to be sufficient.
CGT aligned with income tax rates as well.
Yes, that sounds like a good policy.
But I'm just wondering how much meat Labour will put in the pie for the GE. If the Cons keep Johnson and keep sliding it might be a matter of box clever and a little pledge card.
A very balanced and thoughtful poster, who dislikes opposition party’s counting chickens before they are hatched.
How do goose stepping morons get in, complacency from moderates.
I am watching Pritti Patel live on telly in her triumphalist and smug form - and it’s confirming in me I am DEFINITELY NOT A TORY. Her expensive policy is a fig leaf to disguise her own failure to deal with the problem properly, which she can’t do because she is just not good enough. Her complete inability to work with continental partners and stakeholders, or to run her office effectively.
But Patel is only Home Secretary because Labour put up Corbyn and all those goons around him in two general elections!
To be fair, Coopers motor mouthed response might look great on paper, but absolute rubbish delivered like this.
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
True, though it needn't have been a three term government.
So. Suppose the Conservatives do end up in opposition in 2024. Does the party seek to please itself, or please the voters it needs to win back? Only one strategy works, but the other one feels so good...
A good question. The difference with 1997 is (a) Labour won't have anywhere near as big a majority, and (b) by the look of the polling CHB so approvingly posted, their voters will end up much more disappointed by an SKS first term than they were by Blair's first term.
It's incredibly hard to predict how a notional Starmer Government might be viewed in 2028. How's the economy looking? Many sleaze scandals? Any wars? Who's the Tory leader? Fun to speculate, but it is pretty wild speculation.
Talking of Planning, there's an interesting little complicated issue brewing.
74 local authorities have restricted Plannign Apps - in some cases simly freezing a *lot* - because English Heritage have advised that there is a requirement to show that developments do not increase *nitrate* pollution.
Follows an ECJ ruling on a Dutch case from 2018. I have no idea what this has to do with UK housebuilding now. 60k houses delayed so far, it is estimated.
Local Planning Authorities seem to have their heads spinning. Affected areas:
English Heritage? Surely not. Environment Agency / Natural England?
I'd have thought building on agricultural fields would reduce nitrate pollution in most cases.
@MattW The issue here is Habitats legislation derived from EU law but now transposed in to UK law. It requires a 'likely significant effect' on certain protected sites to be ruled out before 'plans and projects' can proceed. The evolution of case law on the subject has meant that this applies to very abstract situations - eg car exhaust fumes from a additional vehicular movements associated with one car on a forest 20 miles away where environmental degradation has taken place. Because the cause of the environmental degradation is uncertain, a likely significant effect cannot be ruled out, and whilst this uncertainty exists, planning permission cannot be granted. That is how the courts have applied the law, and decision makers (Council's and planning Inspectors) have to follow, even though it often feels wildly disproportionate and manifestly absurd.
I have not had direct experience of the current nitrates stuff - but I understand is rooted in various litigation against housing development where Natural Englands advice on how impacts can be mitigated was challenged in the courts, the result being that there is no way for development to go ahead. The consequence is that Natural England have effectively issued a directive against such housing development in large parts of England (about 70 local authorities) and any permissions granted against this advice could be overturned in court.
The government have told the Council's asking them to find a solution, and given them each £100k to do so. I think the idea is that, for each area, you set up some kind of mitigation plan to neutralise the impact on a case by case basis, but obviously that is going to be subject to challenge on a case by case basis. Every legal challenge brings the barristers etc in and costs big money - £100k won't go very far.
OK, so this is effectively a 'precautionary principle' where because you can't prove something won't have an effect it prevents you from doing anything at all. Hmmm.
I know that we are now moving to 'Biodiversity Net Gain' for a lot of development, though. The developers have to show that they can either make improvements within the site itself or they have to pay indulgences to someone to improve biodiversity elsewhere. Of course, this is all designed by DEFRA to be as arbitrary as possible and can be gamed by destroying as much as possible first (though this is not new, developers often "clear" a site before applying for permission).
Common sense seems to be lacking throughout.
The only thing that seems to get instant approval round here is yet another massive 1km long shed.
Leon using DALLE-2...I bet it is like the ultimate boss guy out of the Southpark World of Warcraft episode.
There are serious tech CEOs on Twiter raving about dall-e - "the Cambrian explosion of AI creativity" - and saying they are completely addicted to making images, it is like being a child again, and it is akin to the first invention of the internet: it is that important
There are also many artists writing obituaries for their careers:
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
True, though it needn't have been a three term government.
So. Suppose the Conservatives do end up in opposition in 2024. Does the party seek to please itself, or please the voters it needs to win back? Only one strategy works, but the other one feels so good...
A good question. The difference with 1997 is (a) Labour won't have anywhere near as big a majority, and (b) by the look of the polling CHB so approvingly posted, their voters will end up much more disappointed by an SKS first term than they were by Blair's first term.
That's why the Conservative response is potentially significant in a way that Hague (bless him) wasn't. However, my hunch is that, once party members get involved, the post-defeat self indulgence (JRM would just be too ridiculous, but you get the idea) is hard to avoid.
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
Actually, we didn't elect a two term Labour Government in 1997 - we did so in 2001. I know that's rather pedantic, but still.
2001 guaranteed the third term.
Except it didn't. Obvs.
Why would you vote Labour in Wakefield btw? Bit surprised to hear that.
Because Boris should no longer be PM (due to imposing a whole load of damaging rules which he knew were unnecessary, this being proven by his feeling safe to ignore them). Therefore at a by-election it's a free hit - SKS has his chance to convince me to vote for him at a general election which he hasn't done yet, but at a by-election it doesn't matter.
Cooper: "The policies she's announced today are unworkable, unethical and extortionate." Says Home Office hasn't even negotiated a cost of each person in Rwanda: "the £120 million is the eyewatering cost of a press release." https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1516429691921518600
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
Actually, we didn't elect a two term Labour Government in 1997 - we did so in 2001. I know that's rather pedantic, but still.
2001 guaranteed the third term.
Except it didn't. Obvs.
Why would you vote Labour in Wakefield btw? Bit surprised to hear that.
Because Boris should no longer be PM (due to imposing a whole load of damaging rules which he knew were unnecessary, this being proven by his feeling safe to ignore them). Therefore at a by-election it's a free hit - SKS has his chance to convince me to vote for him at a general election which he hasn't done yet, but at a by-election it doesn't matter.
I see. So not the hypocritical rule breaking or the lying to parliament. For you he should go for imposing too much lockdown. Interesting.
But Labour were if anything more prudent/restrictive on that. So if I felt like you I reckon I'd be voting for Tice's party. What's it called? Refuk, I think, something like that.
We can’t have detail on the policy because the gangs will exploit it? Wtf?
Talk about half baked, it’s come to the table with a pulse. Send it back to the kitchen and demand a different chef!
One is reminded of the dinner in 'You Only Live Twice':
“a large lobster whose head and tail had been left as a dainty ornament to the sliced pink flesh in the centre. Bond set to with his chopsticks. He was surprised to find that the flesh was raw. He was even more surprised when the head of his lobster began moving off his dish and, with questing antennae and scrabbling feet, tottered off across the table. ‘Good God, Tiger!’ Bond said, aghast. ‘The damn thing’s alive!’”
“Painting of the orange cat Otto von Garfield, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Minister-President of Prussia. Depicted wearing a Prussian Pickelhaube and eating his favorite meal - lasagna.”
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.
Feels very much like a one-term Labour government coming.
For starters yes. We can't elect a two term Labour government sadly.
We did in 1997.
Actually, we didn't elect a two term Labour Government in 1997 - we did so in 2001. I know that's rather pedantic, but still.
2001 guaranteed the third term.
Except it didn't. Obvs.
Why would you vote Labour in Wakefield btw? Bit surprised to hear that.
Because Boris should no longer be PM (due to imposing a whole load of damaging rules which he knew were unnecessary, this being proven by his feeling safe to ignore them). Therefore at a by-election it's a free hit - SKS has his chance to convince me to vote for him at a general election which he hasn't done yet, but at a by-election it doesn't matter.
I see. So not the hypocritical rule breaking or the lying to parliament. For you he should go for imposing too much lockdown. Interesting.
But Labour were if anything more prudent/restrictive on that. So if I felt like you I reckon I'd be voting for Tice's party. What's it called? Refuk, I think, something like that.
I object much less to someone breaking a pointless rule than enforcing one, yes. As for the lying to parliament - of course he did, he's a politician.
On balance I'd much rather have had SKS in 10DS in 2020 than Boris - sure, the media may still have cheerled for lockdown but there would have been an oposition worthy of the name.
But I won't be voting in 2024 based on what happened in 2020.
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).
I hope so. But let's see what the manifesto has. They might play things safe if they have a lead going in. Just the remotest acquaintance with competence and integrity might be judged to be sufficient.
CGT aligned with income tax rates as well.
And dividend tax. And abolition of the individual allowances for those things (interest, dividends, rent). And retracting the NI increase.
“Painting of the orange cat Otto von Garfield, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Minister-President of Prussia. Depicted wearing a Prussian Pickelhaube and eating his favorite meal - lasagna.”
“Painting of the orange cat Otto von Garfield, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Minister-President of Prussia. Depicted wearing a Prussian Pickelhaube and eating his favorite meal - lasagna.”
Love Otto. He looks Prussian!
Not sure it is a Pickelhaube ... not spiky enough?
Those IMF growth predictions are pretty disappointing.
If you deflate by population growth (to get a rough per capita view), the UK is tipped to be the *weakest* performer in the G7 for the period 2020-2023.
We can’t have detail on the policy because the gangs will exploit it? Wtf?
Talk about half baked, it’s come to the table with a pulse. Send it back to the kitchen and demand a different chef!
One is reminded of the dinner in 'You Only Live Twice':
“a large lobster whose head and tail had been left as a dainty ornament to the sliced pink flesh in the centre. Bond set to with his chopsticks. He was surprised to find that the flesh was raw. He was even more surprised when the head of his lobster began moving off his dish and, with questing antennae and scrabbling feet, tottered off across the table. ‘Good God, Tiger!’ Bond said, aghast. ‘The damn thing’s alive!’”
On reflection, it does go on ...
"Tiger hissed impatiently, 'Really, Bondo-san. I am much disappointed in you. You fail test after test. I sincerely hope you will show improvement during the rest of our journey. Now eat up and stop being squeamish. This is a very great Japanese delicacy.'
James Bond bowed ironically. 'Shimata!' he said. 'I have made a mistake. It crossed my mind that honourable Japanese lobster might not like being eaten alive. Thank you for correcting the unworthy thought.'"
Comments
We are the only subspecies remaining. Go back far enough and it was a different picture: Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Flores man, maybe more! Different species or subspecies of humans, with some gene flow between them. But it’s just H. sapiens sapiens left.
Of course, we’re not all identical: there is some variation, and some of that variation correlates with geography. But it’s not that all the genes vary together. You will see varying allele frequencies at different loci, but it’s not that all the White people have one set and all the East Asians have another and all the Africans have yet another. Those traditional racial categorisations don’t show up in the genetics. One allele will be common in the eastern Med, another around the Himalayas, and so on.
The genetic variation there is is mostly in Africa. Two people with an ancestry outside Africa are closer genetically (on average) than two people in Africa. If you absolutely insisted in using “races”, then there are multiple ones in Africa and the rest of us (European, Asian, Australasian, Native American) can all be lumped together.
And given how the conservatives are tearing living standards to shreds right now, many voters will be prepared to at least listen.
Sunak is a disgrace copying Labour's policies in raising NI, but that doesn't mean that Labour would do otherwise, they never have.
There is absolutely no way Labour will be cutting taxes if they get in.
Anyway, so a Nobel Prize for Giles Coren is surely only a matter of time.
I bet they stand on a similar promise to Boris no increase in IC, NI, VAT, but "harmless" windfall taxes and then we will see introduction of some sort of wealth tax under a similar guise, IHT to catch more people and the NI++ cookie jar will ultimately be too tempting.
Its smart politics, and will probably work not to scare the horses. But not only will there not be economic room to cut taxes, there is also something worthy that needs funding.
For the record, I don't think her election would be good at all, especially with the Ukraine. However, it would serve Macron right for being such a tw*t.
Macbeth would like a word.
I am rarely believed when I relate the average standard of reading ability.
Employers in particular. They never quite twigged before why introducing "simplified" paperwork led to drops in productivity. I had to break it to them gently that a huge proportion of their workforce were functionally illiterate.
They knew very well how to use the forms they'd always used.
Change the wording or position of the field however...
.
But there is a hideous undertones beneath everything she puts out and stands for - just like those hideous fascists in Peaky Blinders. Having pops at each other like you are trying to do here, I don’t think gets us closer to the answers we really need, what on earth is going on in France. Why is the mainstream middle gone? What on earth are the voters there thinking to flock to such extremes, with fantasy finance policies, uninspiring leaders, as Le Pen clearly is.
And whilst we are laughing at them, without even understanding it, could the same happen here?
But would they have enough branches to challenge for power?
Turnout could be very low though e.g only 30%.
Most importantly Goodlife Foods are hardly in the top 10 private sector local employers, never mind being the top employer of all.
It's A Dutch multinational consolidating.
But they are still gagging to link everything to Brexit :-) . Give it time.
https://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/news/food-maker-to-move-production-overseas-with-loss-of-up-to-10-9249175/
Hard to prove either way, I guess. How to isolate that variable?
Although obviously tree species actually do indulge in wars of several kinds.
Poisoning insects, poisoning other trees
Stealing light from neighbours
Attempting to colonise land
Encouraging fires to kill off the opposition
etc
etc
Trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade
There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream, "Oppression"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
They say, "The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light"
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw
Inane.
From the prompt:
“A photo of kittens stressing over a spreadsheet in an office”
But that doesn't mean it's "must win" for Boris. It's not - a narrow defeat would be a relatively good result and a medium-sized defeat quite sustainable. It's SKS who must win.
So. Suppose the Conservatives do end up in opposition in 2024. Does the party seek to please itself, or please the voters it needs to win back? Only one strategy works, but the other one feels so good...
Which is of course all part of the political strategy by Lab.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1516425154691309569
Demographics favour them and will do so the longer they are in office.
That trajectory is that the NHS & Social Care Levy will be increased (towards 10% over time) and the proceeds will be split between cuts to income tax, funding the long-term trend of increases to NHS spending, and miscellaneous pet projects.
This isn't a question of ideology, good governance, or economic efficiency. It's a very simple calculus that income tax is much more unpopular than an NHS levy.
The jobs haven't been lost, they were just a pre- Brexit mirage.
They don't have these problems in, say, Finland.
"OMG #dalle is the ai singularity for creativity🤯
In 5 minutes, my kids were able to create a "chicken hat", a toilet car, puppy slippers and a chicken toilet 🤣
Post your dumbest product idea below and I'll use it to turn it into something people would want to buy."
https://twitter.com/PaulYacoubian/status/1514955904659173387?s=20&t=oqd3i0tQlbP9wsc-QZLLvA
With rather a large whiff of Tory. If it smells like a Tory, etc...
Arguably we also did in 1966, albeit the first term was a short one, and 1950, albeit the second term was very short (Labour had a majority, though). It'd probably be courageous to count Feb-Oct 1974 as a term.
Why would you vote Labour in Wakefield btw? Bit surprised to hear that.
https://twitter.com/PaulYacoubian/status/1516173846893768704?s=20&t=oqd3i0tQlbP9wsc-QZLLvA
Will AI make us dream better?
Remember, dall-e creates these images in 15 seconds
Labour should therefore also be thinking about how it can improve its chances of a second term by getting people worried about a conservative government. "Privatising the NHS" isn't enough (though they should have a good opportunity to point to hospital waiting lists assuming they can get them down in 5 years). Nor will sleaze and lying because that will be associated in people's minds with a few individuals like Johnson, so some other residual bad memories that target the whole virus with a broader spectrum immune response might include:
- Prospect of more cuts in education, social care, policing
- Don't believe their promises to cut tax, look at what they did last time
- (if Labour can bring about a few improvements in cooperation with EU) back to holiday traffic jams and queues at passport control
- Back to massive hikes in fuel and food prices
But I'm just wondering how much meat Labour will put in the pie for the GE. If the Cons keep Johnson and keep sliding it might be a matter of box clever and a little pledge card.
How do goose stepping morons get in, complacency from moderates.
I am watching Pritti Patel live on telly in her triumphalist and smug form - and it’s confirming in me I am DEFINITELY NOT A TORY. Her expensive policy is a fig leaf to disguise her own failure to deal with the problem properly, which she can’t do because she is just not good enough. Her complete inability to work with continental partners and stakeholders, or to run her office effectively.
But Patel is only Home Secretary because Labour put up Corbyn and all those goons around him in two general elections!
To be fair, Coopers motor mouthed response might look great on paper, but absolute rubbish delivered like this.
I know that we are now moving to 'Biodiversity Net Gain' for a lot of development, though. The developers have to show that they can either make improvements within the site itself or they have to pay indulgences to someone to improve biodiversity elsewhere. Of course, this is all designed by DEFRA to be as arbitrary as possible and can be gamed by destroying as much as possible first (though this is not new, developers often "clear" a site before applying for permission).
Common sense seems to be lacking throughout.
The only thing that seems to get instant approval round here is yet another massive 1km long shed.
Though I guess that’s not too difficult
There are also many artists writing obituaries for their careers:
https://nicksaraev.com/dall-e-2-the-death-of-art/
"AI is now definitively better than human artists in almost every sense of the word. Do you see the writing on the wall?"
Every day dall-e 2 produces something completely WTF
What sort of sick woke moralising are you pushing here?
In the EU...
The Tories now are if they’d kicked out Blair from the parry altogether in 1994
https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/1516430450616672256
Patel clearly not carrying her own benches here.
We can’t have detail on the policy because the gangs will exploit it? Wtf?
Talk about half baked, it’s come to the table with a pulse. Send it back to the kitchen and demand a different chef!
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1516429691921518600
And yet all she does is point a finger at the existing Labour government. How long have the tories been in charge? 12 odd years?
But Labour were if anything more prudent/restrictive on that. So if I felt like you I reckon I'd be voting for Tice's party. What's it called? Refuk, I think, something like that.
“a large lobster whose head and tail had been left as a dainty ornament to the sliced pink flesh in the centre. Bond set to with his chopsticks. He was surprised to find that the flesh was raw. He was even more surprised when the head of his lobster began moving off his dish and, with questing antennae and scrabbling feet, tottered off across the table. ‘Good God, Tiger!’ Bond said, aghast. ‘The damn thing’s alive!’”
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1516431246091591685
On balance I'd much rather have had SKS in 10DS in 2020 than Boris - sure, the media may still have cheerled for lockdown but there would have been an oposition worthy of the name.
But I won't be voting in 2024 based on what happened in 2020.
If you deflate by population growth (to get a rough per capita view), the UK is tipped to be the *weakest* performer in the G7 for the period 2020-2023.
"Tiger hissed impatiently, 'Really, Bondo-san. I am much disappointed in you. You fail test after test. I sincerely hope you will show improvement during the rest of our journey. Now eat up and stop being squeamish. This is a very great Japanese delicacy.'
James Bond bowed ironically. 'Shimata!' he said. 'I have made a mistake. It crossed my mind that honourable Japanese lobster might not like being eaten alive. Thank you for correcting the unworthy thought.'"