Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Taller equals better nourished. I think it happened in the Netherlands because of the draining of the marshes, leaving that highly nourished and nourishing agricultural land, allowing them to produce an abundance of food - Edam and the like.
Its not just nourishment, its also genetic. Nature and nurture combined.
So tall, well nourished people having well nourished children will have taller children than average or small well nourished people's children will be.
I doubt many voters care a toss about Rishi Sunak's height, and short height doesn't correspond to a lack of gravitas anyway. Too many will care about his skin colour, but for those who don't, in other words who are not racists, the main thing about the way he comes across is that he is softly spoken and genteel. He is the most genteel PM of my lifetime. He basically seems like a nice guy until you realise he's a Tory. Sad to say that most voters probably want a strong-seeming leader (whatever his height) who appears ready and willing to give them a damned hard kick up the arse, the same way they prefer (treatment-wise that is) nurses who are right old fascistic battleaxes rather than nice feminine girls.
No, it's not his "genteelness". It's the fact this genteelness comes from his attending one of the greatest public schools in the country, from his having a successful career as a merchant banker (earning millions) and from his marrying a literal billionairess, who nonetheless avoided UK taxes. And: he doesn't have any "working class friends"
Sunak is seen as a posh, effete, out of touch trillionaire, partly because he IS. This is sad, as a lot of us wanted him to do well, and wished him well, but the times are tough and he doesn't, it seems, have the grit - or any particularly good ideas, to address this adversity
He's no worse than Starmer (for different reasons) but the country has anyway decided Fuck the Tories (after 13 years, most of them squandered) and Tories can't complain. They HAVE squandered 13 years in power
In calmer times, Sunak could have hoped to be another John Major; yes a bit of a drip, but decent enough, doing his best, calm, steady and not an idiot. That worked pretty well for JM in the early years of his premiership.
Unfortunately, everyone knew that Major understood adversity in a way that Sunak (through no particular fault of his own) doesn't. That matters when the country is struggling. Sunak has also rather stuffed his reputation for dogged decency by vanishing when the going gets tough (the Johnson vote, PMQs...)
So yes- Sunak is shrinking under the spotlight, and by next year, there may be nothing left at all.
I doubt many voters care a toss about Rishi Sunak's height, and short height doesn't correspond to a lack of gravitas anyway. Too many will care about his skin colour, but for those who don't, in other words who are not racists, the main thing about the way he comes across is that he is softly spoken and genteel. He is the most genteel PM of my lifetime. He basically seems like a nice guy until you realise he's a Tory. Sad to say that most voters probably want a strong-seeming leader (whatever his height) who appears ready and willing to give them a damned hard kick up the arse, the same way they prefer (treatment-wise that is) nurses who are right old fascistic battleaxes rather than nice feminine girls.
No, it's not his "genteelness". It's the fact this genteelness comes from his attending one of the greatest public schools in the country, from his having a successful career as a merchant banker (earning millions) and from his marrying a literal billionairess, who nonetheless avoided UK taxes. And: he doesn't have any "working class friends"
Sunak is seen as a posh, effete, out of touch trillionaire, partly because he IS. This is sad, as a lot of us wanted him to do well, and wished him well, but the times are tough and he doesn't, it seems, have the grit - or any particularly good ideas, to address this adversity
He's no worse than Starmer (for different reasons) but the country has anyway decided Fuck the Tories (after 13 years, most of them squandered) and Tories can't complain. They HAVE squandered 13 years in power
What is the difference between genteel and effete?
I went to the same school that he did. One thing I'm sure of from decades of personal experience of conversations with people is that the vast majority don't have the slightest clue what it's like to go to such a place. Even my ex-wife acquired no clue. That is no criticism. I don't have a clue about what it's like to go to a school down the road either. I'm kinda interested in the perception of Sunak~WinColl. Funny thing is I don't really give a damn about that even though I'm both anti-WinColl and anti-Tory. I wouldn't necessarily prefer a self-made Tory leader who spoke like a barrow boy.
Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner would wipe the floor with Rishi Sunak in an election, because they have about a million times more clue about how the other half lives. Sir Keir though?
Some of Sunak's bigger fans on PB are alumni of his school. That's nice I suppose. I can't say he strikes me as particularly gentle or genteel. He's quite a poor communicator via every medium. In interviews he seems irritated by his words being called into question, as if he's just said something very profound, as opposed to the banal script he's usually repeating. In speeches he adopts an oddly high pitched shouty tone, and comes over as deeply patronising, seeming to expect crowd-pleasers like 'our wimmin' repeated ad nauseum to win over his audience. Perhaps they didn't major on public speaking.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
A big problem with all this is that IQ is bullshit.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
There is a huge IQ impact from nourishment in the womb, which will tend you depress reported IQs from poorer countries.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
I doubt many voters care a toss about Rishi Sunak's height, and short height doesn't correspond to a lack of gravitas anyway. Too many will care about his skin colour, but for those who don't, in other words who are not racists, the main thing about the way he comes across is that he is softly spoken and genteel. He is the most genteel PM of my lifetime. He basically seems like a nice guy until you realise he's a Tory. Sad to say that most voters probably want a strong-seeming leader (whatever his height) who appears ready and willing to give them a damned hard kick up the arse, the same way they prefer (treatment-wise that is) nurses who are right old fascistic battleaxes rather than nice feminine girls.
No, it's not his "genteelness". It's the fact this genteelness comes from his attending one of the greatest public schools in the country, from his having a successful career as a merchant banker (earning millions) and from his marrying a literal billionairess, who nonetheless avoided UK taxes. And: he doesn't have any "working class friends"
Sunak is seen as a posh, effete, out of touch trillionaire, partly because he IS. This is sad, as a lot of us wanted him to do well, and wished him well, but the times are tough and he doesn't, it seems, have the grit - or any particularly good ideas, to address this adversity
He's no worse than Starmer (for different reasons) but the country has anyway decided Fuck the Tories (after 13 years, most of them squandered) and Tories can't complain. They HAVE squandered 13 years in power
What is the difference between genteel and effete?
I went to the same school that he did. One thing I'm sure of from decades of personal experience of conversations with people is that the vast majority don't have the slightest clue what it's like to go to such a place. Even my ex-wife acquired no clue. That is no criticism. I don't have a clue about what it's like to go to a school down the road either. I'm kinda interested in the perception of Sunak~WinColl. Funny thing is I don't really give a damn about that even though I'm both anti-WinColl and anti-Tory. I wouldn't necessarily prefer a self-made Tory leader who spoke like a barrow boy.
Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner would wipe the floor with Rishi Sunak in an election, because they have about a million times more clue about how the other half lives. Sir Keir though?
Some of Sunak's bigger fans on PB are alumni of his school. That's nice I suppose. I can't say he strikes me as particularly gentle or genteel. He's quite a poor communicator via every medium. In interviews he seems irritated by his words being called into question, as if he's just said something very profound, as opposed to the banal script he's usually repeating. In speeches he adopts an oddly high pitched shouty tone, and comes over as deeply patronising, seeming to expect crowd-pleasers like 'our wimmin' repeated ad nauseum to win over his audience. Perhaps they didn't major on public speaking.
He seems generally one note to me, but perhaps that was just the nature of the statements he was putting out at the time. In the Commons performances it's just generic 'aha, but did you know about the opposition doing x?' stuff, and to camera it's the over earnest thing.
It's not terrible, but it's not very good. Frankly I liked Truss's slight goofiness, when she wasn't simply stilted.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
Well, I am not well researched in this area. But in passing I watched a video with historian Thomas Sowell, who highlighted IQ data from mixed race kids in post-WW2 occupied Germany, where significant numbers of black GIs had had children with German women. IQ tests showed no IQ differences between the black kids and their white counterparts, which Sowell put down to the absence of black subculture in Germany. I find the cultural argument plausible - more so than the harsher environment theory.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Taller equals better nourished. I think it happened in the Netherlands because of the draining of the marshes, leaving that highly nourished and nourishing agricultural land, allowing them to produce an abundance of food - Edam and the like.
No, this is not the explanation. The Dutch used to be the same height as the Belgians and Germans. It's only in the last century and a half (maybe even more recent) they suddenly grew noticeably bigger. It is a genuine mystery
"A popular explanation is nutrition – a calorie-stuffed diet rich in meat and dairy products. But that can’t be the whole story, experts say.
Other European countries, too, have enjoyed similar prosperity and a rise in living standards, yet their citizens have not shot skywards as much"
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
If you're a lady, you could "plead your belly" - announce your pregnancy in court. In the days of the axeman and the hangman, that generally spared you execution. Some female criminals used to get Up The Junction just to avoid the rope, and fair enough
On a tangent, re. pregnancy and execution: Singapore dictator Lee Kuan Yew says in his autobiography that one reason he got rid of jury trials for murder was that hey, he could have had to deal with a pregnant woman on a jury at a murder trial, and what's the likelihood that she would vote for a guilty verdict knowing it would lead to the defendant's execution?
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
Not a very plausible theory. NW Europe has a much longer growing season than India, for example, with a relatively short "hungry gap" in spring.
Indeed it has been postulated that the high rate of type 2 diabetes in those from the subcontinent is because there is a biological advantage in rapid weight gain in lands where the "hungry gap" is six months or more.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Taller equals better nourished. I think it happened in the Netherlands because of the draining of the marshes, leaving that highly nourished and nourishing agricultural land, allowing them to produce an abundance of food - Edam and the like.
No, this is not the explanation. The Dutch used to be the same height as the Belgians and Germans. It's only in the last century and a half (maybe even more recent) they suddenly grew noticeably bigger. It is a genuine mystery
"A popular explanation is nutrition – a calorie-stuffed diet rich in meat and dairy products. But that can’t be the whole story, experts say.
Other European countries, too, have enjoyed similar prosperity and a rise in living standards, yet their citizens have not shot skywards as much"
One theory is "all the cycling". True story. Others say Dutch women have a sexual thing for tall men, more than other women. No one knows
That summary shows no understanding of nutrition at all. Stuffing yourself with 'calories' is completely different than benefitting from plentiful nutrient-rich produce from soils recently reclaimed from the sea.
SNP in danger of finishing third in Scotland behind the Tories.
Labour 31%
SNP 31%
SCons 28%
I mean it is a subsample so as about as accurate as an American war movie.
Indeed but if the SNP finished third in Scotland on votes and seats that would be even more humiliating for Yousaf than the next election is likely to be for Rishi.
100+ seats lost in England and Wales and 2 or 3 gains in Scotland for the Tories? Looks on to me.
Yes Scotland has a habit of doing the opposite to England recently. 2010 saw Labour hold all its seats but the Tories win a majority in England. 2015 saw a Tory majority in England and the UK but an SNP landslide in Scotland. 2017 saw significant SNP losses to the Tories in Scotland but the Tories losing seats in England and their majority in the UK. 2019 saw the Conservatives win a majority in England and UK wide but lose over half their Scottish seats to the SNP.
2024 looks no different in terms of the SNP and Tories at least but it does look like Starmer might break the mould by being the first main UK party leader since Blair to win big in England and Scotland
We have our own elections up here and one of the things that concern me as a Unionist is how disaggregated they have become. A Labour government with a serious chunk of Scottish seats might improve that and I would welcome that, whatever reservations I have about SKS and his shadow cabinet.
'disaggregated', meaning, please?
Not being influenced by the same factors, not moving in the same direction, not correlated.
Thanks. Which, I suppose, is an indication of (a) devolution and (b) more generally a distinct polity.
Yes, which is why as a Unionist I don't like it. We are having our own conversation up here and it is no longer a UK one. I hope that changes.
On the other hand, any insistence that all conversations have to be the same across the UK - or the imposition of suich a doctrine - would be a priori unreasonable and inherently very damaging to the concept of a UK.
If the polls are to be believed labour are heading for a majority in Scotland Wales and England and a very large one overall at that
Far too early to say. Sunak still has the media onside to big him up and scythe down the hopeless Starmer. I reckon I am still on for my 20 seat Con majority.
It is reported that here in North Wales objectors to the blanket 20mph rule are tampering with the signs with one side 30 and the other side 20 and saying take your choice !!!
20mph sign vandals face police action for creating 'take-your-pick' speed limits
I have some sympathy with reducing the limits around urban streets in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea to 20mph, particularly around schools and play areas.
One of the pilot areas is through St Brides Major. The 20 is plenty limit runs all the way from where St Brides Common meets the village all the way out into the countryside on the other side of the village, which is where the GoSafe partnership hide to catch out motorists. Our village had been earmarked for a specific area in the central village between the two pubs was earmarked to drop from 30 to 20, which is fine by me. However , community council retired, bike riding retired so gooders with toe village o much time on their hands are lobbying the Vale Council to make the entire village a twenty, which means half a mile into the countryside at either end that's where Go Safe will be.
One good thing has come of the changes. When it was a 30 in St Brides, I tried to keep below 40. Now it is a 20 I try to stick below 30.
You'll get done for anything above 24 mph [20 + (20*10%) + 2].
The problem with the limit is that it applies 24/7, and therefore includes times and road conditions when it is absurdly low. The same cn be said of all standard speed limits, but is particularly true of the very low ones which are essentially there because of schoolchildren or heavy pedestrian presence at certain times of day.
I have fierce brakes!
My son got done for 36 in a thirty a few years ago and told me all about the 10% plus 2 after his speed awareness training. In around 1980 I went to a demonstration in Coventry for the new hand held speed guns. The copper running the demo explained that (at the time) West Midlands Police didn't prosecute for less than 39 in a 30, and the copper said he wouldn't tug a driver for less than 45 in a 30. Ah the good old days!
I'm 48 years old. I've only ever had one speeding ticket, which was in rural Alabama earlier this year.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
If this was so, civilisation would evolved in Northern Europe befote Mesopotomia, surely.
And them it came west to Greece, then Italy, then up to Northern Europe. Not forgetting ofcourse, the very advanced Indian and other Asian civilisations, or that a lot of the early Celtic and Germanic peoples also seemed to have a lot interesting going on. But the first centre of gravity seemed to be in the middle east and asia ( and Egypt ), followed by southern europe.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
A big problem with all this is that IQ is bullshit.
Well, as I said, a lot of people think just like you, tho they often suddenly believe in IQ when it suits them
I don't claim to know. I've read a lot on this subject. It is always vexatious. Indeed it is near intractable, now, as few reputable scientists will go near the topic, for fear of being cancelled
"Hey, I want to do some research on possible race differences in IQ" is not a popular pitch for boffins in labs, not these days. And for understandable reasons. Echoes of the Nazis and eugenics. Ugh. However it does mean we are largely left in the dark, with only our emotional reactions to guide us. You can see that right here, right now, on PB
I doubt many voters care a toss about Rishi Sunak's height, and short height doesn't correspond to a lack of gravitas anyway. Too many will care about his skin colour, but for those who don't, in other words who are not racists, the main thing about the way he comes across is that he is softly spoken and genteel. He is the most genteel PM of my lifetime. He basically seems like a nice guy until you realise he's a Tory. Sad to say that most voters probably want a strong-seeming leader (whatever his height) who appears ready and willing to give them a damned hard kick up the arse, the same way they prefer (treatment-wise that is) nurses who are right old fascistic battleaxes rather than nice feminine girls.
No, it's not his "genteelness". It's the fact this genteelness comes from his attending one of the greatest public schools in the country, from his having a successful career as a merchant banker (earning millions) and from his marrying a literal billionairess, who nonetheless avoided UK taxes. And: he doesn't have any "working class friends"
Sunak is seen as a posh, effete, out of touch trillionaire, partly because he IS. This is sad, as a lot of us wanted him to do well, and wished him well, but the times are tough and he doesn't, it seems, have the grit - or any particularly good ideas, to address this adversity
He's no worse than Starmer (for different reasons) but the country has anyway decided Fuck the Tories (after 13 years, most of them squandered) and Tories can't complain. They HAVE squandered 13 years in power
What is the difference between genteel and effete?
I went to the same school that he did. One thing I'm sure of from decades of personal experience of conversations with people is that the vast majority don't have the slightest clue what it's like to go to such a place. Even my ex-wife acquired no clue. That is no criticism. I don't have a clue about what it's like to go to a school down the road either. I'm kinda interested in the perception of Sunak~WinColl. Funny thing is I don't really give a damn about that even though I'm both anti-WinColl and anti-Tory. I wouldn't necessarily prefer a self-made Tory leader who spoke like a barrow boy.
Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner would wipe the floor with Rishi Sunak in an election, because they have about a million times more clue about how the other half lives. Sir Keir though?
Some of Sunak's bigger fans on PB are alumni of his school. That's nice I suppose. I can't say he strikes me as particularly gentle or genteel. He's quite a poor communicator via every medium. In interviews he seems irritated by his words being called into question, as if he's just said something very profound, as opposed to the banal script he's usually repeating. In speeches he adopts an oddly high pitched shouty tone, and comes over as deeply patronising, seeming to expect crowd-pleasers like 'our wimmin' repeated ad nauseum to win over his audience. Perhaps they didn't major on public speaking.
He seems generally one note to me, but perhaps that was just the nature of the statements he was putting out at the time. In the Commons performances it's just generic 'aha, but did you know about the opposition doing x?' stuff, and to camera it's the over earnest thing.
It's not terrible, but it's not very good. Frankly I liked Truss's slight goofiness, when she wasn't simply stilted.
I doubt many voters care a toss about Rishi Sunak's height, and short height doesn't correspond to a lack of gravitas anyway. Too many will care about his skin colour, but for those who don't, in other words who are not racists, the main thing about the way he comes across is that he is softly spoken and genteel. He is the most genteel PM of my lifetime. He basically seems like a nice guy until you realise he's a Tory. Sad to say that most voters probably want a strong-seeming leader (whatever his height) who appears ready and willing to give them a damned hard kick up the arse, the same way they prefer (treatment-wise that is) nurses who are right old fascistic battleaxes rather than nice feminine girls.
No, it's not his "genteelness". It's the fact this genteelness comes from his attending one of the greatest public schools in the country, from his having a successful career as a merchant banker (earning millions) and from his marrying a literal billionairess, who nonetheless avoided UK taxes. And: he doesn't have any "working class friends"
Sunak is seen as a posh, effete, out of touch trillionaire, partly because he IS. This is sad, as a lot of us wanted him to do well, and wished him well, but the times are tough and he doesn't, it seems, have the grit - or any particularly good ideas, to address this adversity
He's no worse than Starmer (for different reasons) but the country has anyway decided Fuck the Tories (after 13 years, most of them squandered) and Tories can't complain. They HAVE squandered 13 years in power
What is the difference between genteel and effete?
I went to the same school that he did. One thing I'm sure of from decades of personal experience of conversations with people is that the vast majority don't have the slightest clue what it's like to go to such a place. Even my ex-wife acquired no clue. That is no criticism. I don't have a clue about what it's like to go to a school down the road either. I'm kinda interested in the perception of Sunak~WinColl. Funny thing is I don't really give a damn about that even though I'm both anti-WinColl and anti-Tory. I wouldn't necessarily prefer a self-made Tory leader who spoke like a barrow boy.
Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner would wipe the floor with Rishi Sunak in an election, because they have about a million times more clue about how the other half lives. Sir Keir though?
Some of Sunak's bigger fans on PB are alumni of his school. That's nice I suppose. I can't say he strikes me as particularly gentle or genteel. He's quite a poor communicator via every medium. In interviews he seems irritated by his words being called into question, as if he's just said something very profound, as opposed to the banal script he's usually repeating. In speeches he adopts an oddly high pitched shouty tone, and comes over as deeply patronising, seeming to expect crowd-pleasers like 'our wimmin' repeated ad nauseum to win over his audience. Perhaps they didn't major on public speaking.
He seems generally one note to me, but perhaps that was just the nature of the statements he was putting out at the time. In the Commons performances it's just generic 'aha, but did you know about the opposition doing x?' stuff, and to camera it's the over earnest thing.
It's not terrible, but it's not very good. Frankly I liked Truss's slight goofiness, when she wasn't simply stilted.
I remember our resident nats heavily slating Sunak on his whistle stop tour of Scotland where he said 'Scotland has a great brand'. I defended him strongly on that. Looking back though, it probably did demonstrate the superficiality of his thought process, and the lack of any enhanced insight he'd managed to pick up on his journey that he hadn't already acquired from the 2 seconds of thought he'd given the notion of 'Scotland' before he'd set off.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
A big problem with all this is that IQ is bullshit.
Well, as I said, a lot of people think just like you, tho they often suddenly believe in IQ when it suits them
I don't claim to know. I've read a lot on this subject. It is always vexatious. Indeed it is near intractable, now, as few reputable scientists will go near the topic, for fear of being cancelled
"Hey, I want to do some research on possible race differences in IQ" is not a popular pitch for boffins in labs, not these days. And for understandable reasons. Echoes of the Nazis and eugenics. Ugh. However it does mean we are largely left in the dark, with only our emotional reactions to guide us. You can see that right here, right now, on PB
I don't believe there is such a thing as "general intelligence". It's like thinking it's meaningful to think in terms of an average of distance and luminosity. But let's assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing. OK so how would you find out whether it was normally distributed or not. The answer can't possibly be by measuring IQs because IQ assumes it's normally distributed.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
For example, complete the following sequence:
a, b, c, ch, d, .......
Most people will never get it while a minority will get it immediately. I'd like to think the latter are smarter than the former, but modesty forbids.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
And the above amongst the most atheist in the world, as are northern Europeans. Whereas Africa is now the most religious continent in the world and has the highest birthrate.
Rate of religion amongst those aged 18 to 45 is key to maintaining replacement level + birthrates and right now the highest average IQ nations are far less religious than they were 100 years ago and their birthrate has declined accordingly
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
If this was so, civilisation would evolved in Northern Europe befote Mesopotomia, surely.
And them it came west to Greece, then Italy, then up to Northern Europe. Not forgetting ofcourse, the very advanced Indian and other Asian civilisations, or that a lot of the early Celtic and Germanic peoples also seemed to have a lot interesting going on. But the first centre of gravity seemed to be in the middle east and asia, followed by southern europe.
Yes, the theory has multiple flaws, and that is if you even believe in IQ as a significant metric. I was just explaining that there ARE theories for apparent variation across human populations
I find it easier (and less explosive and angering) to focus on the one obvious outlier. Ashkenazi Jews. They have an average IQ of 115, one whole standard deviation above the norm. That's a massive difference. And it is, of course, reflected in their out-performance in multiple fields, from chess to maths, from Nobel Prizes to Fortune 500 CEOs to Hollywood moguls. Ashkenazi Jews are phenomenally successful in many fields of life - which is one reason they got persecuted everywhere. Too competitive
I am largely persuaded by the various theories that explain this. The persecution actually reinforced Jewish smartness, it meant that only the smartest survived. The persecution meant that the Jews themselves became the most literate community on earth, for a while, rabbis were more highly prized than warriors or leaders (because Jews weren't allowed to be warriors or leaders), so clever rabbis had more kids, rather than guys good with swords, and so on. Eugenics was FORCED on Jewish people
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility ; and the latter is particularly affected by levels of verbal education.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive or creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest sophistication of intelligence, I would argue.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
A big problem with all this is that IQ is bullshit.
Well, as I said, a lot of people think just like you, tho they often suddenly believe in IQ when it suits them
I don't claim to know. I've read a lot on this subject. It is always vexatious. Indeed it is near intractable, now, as few reputable scientists will go near the topic, for fear of being cancelled
"Hey, I want to do some research on possible race differences in IQ" is not a popular pitch for boffins in labs, not these days. And for understandable reasons. Echoes of the Nazis and eugenics. Ugh. However it does mean we are largely left in the dark, with only our emotional reactions to guide us. You can see that right here, right now, on PB
C'mon, people like Stephen Pinker talk in terms of long-lost identical twins who met each other in a lift on the way to a reunion in a TV studio and they were wearing oh so similar ties and they had more or less exactly the same taste in pizza. Real Reader's Digest stuff. I'd go more for Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance stuff myself.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
Sure we can.
It measures IQ.
Indeed. Any test measures something. Pisstaker's heaven.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
Sure we can.
It measures IQ.
Indeed. Any test measures something. Pisstaker's heaven.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
A big problem with all this is that IQ is bullshit.
Well, as I said, a lot of people think just like you, tho they often suddenly believe in IQ when it suits them
I don't claim to know. I've read a lot on this subject. It is always vexatious. Indeed it is near intractable, now, as few reputable scientists will go near the topic, for fear of being cancelled
"Hey, I want to do some research on possible race differences in IQ" is not a popular pitch for boffins in labs, not these days. And for understandable reasons. Echoes of the Nazis and eugenics. Ugh. However it does mean we are largely left in the dark, with only our emotional reactions to guide us. You can see that right here, right now, on PB
C'mon, people like Stephen Pinker talk in terms of long-lost identical twins who met each other in a lift on the way to a reunion in a TV studio and they were wearing oh so similar ties and they had more or less exactly the same taste in pizza. Real Reader's Digest stuff. I'd go more for Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance stuff myself.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
Sure we can.
It measures IQ.
Indeed. Any test measures something. Pisstaker's heaven.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility ; and the latter is particularly affected by levels of verbal education.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive or creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest sophistication of intelligence, I would argue.
You just cannot sensibly average what IQ measures with emotional "intelligence" or intuition because that's like averaging distance with smelliness.
It's not just that IQ is "heavily slanted" to this or that. It *is* an average performance on tests for arithmetical, visuo-spatial, and linguistic skills. Emotional skills and intuition play no part in it whatsoever.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
So IQ measures "the kind of brainpower you need to be successful in modern capitalist societies", something like that?
Fair enough. I might even agree. And, if so, that's no small thing. It means IQ is useful as a measure, for a start
To my mind, the whole debate would be better off it we removed the word "intelligence". It's too judgemental, emotive and loaded - and simultaneously vague. We should call it Tishpop Type A (= good scores in IQ tests age 10)
Congrats, you have lots of Tishpop Type A. You will do well at certain things in the future. This person has Dishyfab Type C, they might well do better at other things. And so on.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
So IQ measures "the kind of brainpower you need to be successful in modern capitalist societies", something like that?
Fair enough. I might even agree. And, if so, that's no small thing. It means IQ is useful as a measure, for a start
To my mind, the whole debate would be better off it we removed the word "intelligence". It's too judgemental, emotive and loaded - and simultaneously vague. We should call it Tishpop Type A (= good scores in IQ tests age 10)
Congrats, you have lots of Tishpop Type A. You will do well at certain things in the future. This person has Dishyfab Type C, they might well do better at other things. And so on.
Sure, but in the end it will be loonies like me who go to Watkin's but who when all's said and done prefer Atlantis who are successful. Ha! Yes, I am drunk.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
IQ is heavily slanted to mathematical intelligence, and a certain type of linguistic facility.
There are all sorts of forms of constructive and creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest intelligence.
IQ - whatever it measures - is quite closely correlated with success in later life. If you are tested and you have a high IQ at age 10 or 12 or 15, you are much more likely to go on to have a successful, affluent life, than if you have a low IQ at these ages
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Present society is patriarchal and what IQ measures correlates with what's good for success therein.
So IQ measures "the kind of brainpower you need to be successful in modern capitalist societies", something like that?
Fair enough. I might even agree. And, if so, that's no small thing. It means IQ is useful as a measure, for a start
To my mind, the whole debate would be better off it we removed the word "intelligence". It's too judgemental, emotive and loaded - and simultaneously vague. We should call it Tishpop Type A (= good scores in IQ tests age 10)
Congrats, you have lots of Tishpop Type A. You will do well at certain things in the future. This person has Dishyfab Type C, they might well do better at other things. And so on.
Sure, but in the end it will be loonies like me who go to Watkin's but who when all's said and done prefer Atlantis who are successful. Ha! Yes, I am drunk.
TBH your inebriation has been fairly clear for some time
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
Sure we can.
It measures IQ.
Indeed. Any test measures something. Pisstaker's heaven.
Is that Mr Peter Ian Staker?
Fascist!
Fascism - "System of government, characterised by extreme dictatorship," Seven across
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
Although the Romans, Babylonians, Sumerians and Greeks seemed to have been doing rather better on the IQ front in antiquity, ofcourse..
South-East Asian countries seem to record very high IQ scores, although I think IQ is an extremely limited measure of intelligence.
Not south east Asia. East Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, coastal China, etc. All high IQ. Unfortunately right now IQ *seems* to be inversely proportionate to fecundity in reproduction. The name for this phenomenon is dysgenic drift, and it can be seen within societies as well as across them, though it is highly controversial as a concept
It seems very unlikely that any race has evolved to have lower IQ. What purpose would that serve? Therefore the variations are likelier to be down to cultural or environmental factors.
Almost no human population (let's avoid the horribly explosive word "race") would evolve to have a lower IQ. Why would that happen? It's mad, as you say. However it is possible to see why some populations might face more pressure to evolve higher IQ than others
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
If this was so, civilisation would evolved in Northern Europe befote Mesopotomia, surely.
And them it came west to Greece, then Italy, then up to Northern Europe. Not forgetting ofcourse, the very advanced Indian and other Asian civilisations, or that a lot of the early Celtic and Germanic peoples also seemed to have a lot interesting going on. But the first centre of gravity seemed to be in the middle east and asia, followed by southern europe.
Yes, the theory has multiple flaws, and that is if you even believe in IQ as a significant metric. I was just explaining that there ARE theories for apparent variation across human populations
I find it easier (and less explosive and angering) to focus on the one obvious outlier. Ashkenazi Jews. They have an average IQ of 115, one whole standard deviation above the norm. That's a massive difference. And it is, of course, reflected in their out-performance in multiple fields, from chess to maths, from Nobel Prizes to Fortune 500 CEOs to Hollywood moguls. Ashkenazi Jews are phenomenally successful in many fields of life - which is one reason they got persecuted everywhere. Too competitive
I am largely persuaded by the various theories that explain this. The persecution actually reinforced Jewish smartness, it meant that only the smartest survived. The persecution meant that the Jews themselves became the most literate community on earth, for a while, rabbis were more highly prized than warriors or leaders (because Jews weren't allowed to be warriors or leaders), so clever rabbis had more kids, rather than guys good with swords, and so on. Eugenics was FORCED on Jewish people
Talmudic study was at the centre of Jewish life for millennia , and the best talmudic scholars indeed often had the most children. There could indeed be something in this.
And then German speaking countries, who were some of the first to emancipate Jewish people, had an incredible array of talented figures emerge. No wonder Churchill thought the Nazis were beating themselves with sending so many scientists from the Jewish community into exile.
IQ is both inherited, and subject to enviromental influences: For example: "A study of U.S. military data collected during the First and Second World Wars found that the introduction of salt iodization in the U.S. in the 1920s resulted in an increase in IQ, by approximately one standard deviation, for the quarter of the U.S. population most deficient in iodine, explaining about "one decade's worth of the upward trend in IQ" in the U.S. (i.e., the Flynn effect)."
Alcohol during pregnancy can reduce a child's IQ. In one of Tony Hillerman's mysteries, detective Jim Chee comes across a boy with fetal alcohol syndrome, who is being raised by his grandfather. Apparently that is common enough on the Navjo reservation so that the detective recongnizes the syndrome, immediately.
(The grandfather had gotten drunk during a celebration of his birthday, and hit and killed a man. Chee, who is supposed to arrest him, instead helps to cover up some of the evidence, because the grandfather is the only person taking care of the boy. And because the grandfather is sending cash, anonymously, to the man's family.)
There is some evidence that continuing marijuana use reduces IQs. I've been wondering recently if that explains the "reverse Flynn effect".
IQ is both inherited, and subject to enviromental influences: For example: "A study of U.S. military data collected during the First and Second World Wars found that the introduction of salt iodization in the U.S. in the 1920s resulted in an increase in IQ, by approximately one standard deviation, for the quarter of the U.S. population most deficient in iodine, explaining about "one decade's worth of the upward trend in IQ" in the U.S. (i.e., the Flynn effect)."
Alcohol during pregnancy can reduce a child's IQ. In one of Tony Hillerman's mysteries, detective Jim Chee comes across a boy with fetal alcohol syndrome, who is being raised by his grandfather. Apparently that is common enough on the Navjo reservation so that the detective recongnizes the syndrome, immediately.
(The grandfather had gotten drunk during a celebration of his birthday, and hit and killed a man. Chee, who is supposed to arrest him, instead helps to cover up some of the evidence, because the grandfather is the only person taking care of the boy. And because the grandfather is sending cash, anonymously, to the man's family.)
There is some evidence that continuing marijuana use reduces IQs. I've been wondering recently if that explains the "reverse Flynn effect".
What about the average of mass in grams and some other metric in some other units - is that "inherited" too? The point that none of the IQ salesmen seem to get is how present culture holds ALL healthy children back, e.g; EVERY healthy child can learn to read by 18 months, no problem whatsoever. Everyone who has ever taught a child to do this will agree with me. Where does this leave the concept of IQ?
IQ is both inherited, and subject to enviromental influences: For example: "A study of U.S. military data collected during the First and Second World Wars found that the introduction of salt iodization in the U.S. in the 1920s resulted in an increase in IQ, by approximately one standard deviation, for the quarter of the U.S. population most deficient in iodine, explaining about "one decade's worth of the upward trend in IQ" in the U.S. (i.e., the Flynn effect)."
Alcohol during pregnancy can reduce a child's IQ. In one of Tony Hillerman's mysteries, detective Jim Chee comes across a boy with fetal alcohol syndrome, who is being raised by his grandfather. Apparently that is common enough on the Navjo reservation so that the detective recongnizes the syndrome, immediately.
(The grandfather had gotten drunk during a celebration of his birthday, and hit and killed a man. Chee, who is supposed to arrest him, instead helps to cover up some of the evidence, because the grandfather is the only person taking care of the boy. And because the grandfather is sending cash, anonymously, to the man's family.)
There is some evidence that continuing marijuana use reduces IQs. I've been wondering recently if that explains the "reverse Flynn effect".
What about the average of mass in grams and some other metric in some other units - is that "inherited" too? The point that none of the IQ salesmen seem to get is how present culture holds ALL healthy children back, e.g; EVERY healthy child can learn to read by 18 months, no problem whatsoever. Everyone who has ever taught a child to do this will agree with me. Where does this leave the concept of IQ?
Every healthy child can run. Where does this leave the concept of athletic competition?
Interesting to see the discussion is relentlessly one of heredity. Not a thought given to environment, or regression to the mean.
Well, there do seem be some genetic differences between northern and southern europe, too.
Lighter complexions and taller bodies were originally just supposed to be adaptations to the more northern climates, and environments, n'est-ce-pas ?
Likewise, IQ, it was once alleged, though we now all know better: that IQ is a unique human variable in that it shows no variation across populations, unlike every other single human variable, for reasons we cannot discern, but nonetheless are fundamentally and miraculously true, like the Word of God, and must not be questioned, and this in addition to the fact that IQ is a useless and laughable measure, except for when it is being prayed in aid of people accused of capital crimes when it is an all-important, entirely reliable measure and can save them from the death penalty because the IQ is too low, even though IQ is meaningless
I used to get quite high scores in IQ tests. I'd like to think that makes me smart enough to get a low score if it would save me from the noose.
That's the thing. Height is undeniable, and short of orthopedic surgery or osteoporosis of the spine, it doesn't change in adult life. The same method of measuring height is as valid in Lilongwe as Rome or Amsterdam.
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
I think we can agree that it is measuring scores on IQ tests at the time they are taken.
Comments
So tall, well nourished people having well nourished children will have taller children than average or small well nourished people's children will be.
Unfortunately, everyone knew that Major understood adversity in a way that Sunak (through no particular fault of his own) doesn't. That matters when the country is struggling. Sunak has also rather stuffed his reputation for dogged decency by vanishing when the going gets tough (the Johnson vote, PMQs...)
So yes- Sunak is shrinking under the spotlight, and by next year, there may be nothing left at all.
One theory (and these are mere theories, and very controversial) is that harsher environments select for people with the ability to think ahead and plan over seasons and years. eg in more northerly latitudes, with harsh winters, you can't rely on an abundance of food through the year, so you have to learn to store food, to preserve it, to work out how much you need as a tribe, clan, nation, etc, all of which favours higher IQ people: so they survive, raising the overall average
This is one of the explanations put forward for higher IQs at higher latitudes. IF you believe in IQ. And many, of course, do not. The theory also falls down when it goes too far north. Nordic people and northeast Asian people DO have higher IQs, but up in the far north, in Greenland etc, IQs are lower again. So what's happening there?
IQ varies across cultures, and is less reproducible. It alters with education, attention and also senescence. It is not an immutable part of a person, and indeed we cannot even agree what it is measuring.
It's not terrible, but it's not very good. Frankly I liked Truss's slight goofiness, when she wasn't simply stilted.
"A popular explanation is nutrition – a calorie-stuffed diet rich in meat and dairy products. But that can’t be the whole story, experts say.
Other European countries, too, have enjoyed similar prosperity and a rise in living standards, yet their citizens have not shot skywards as much"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/08/scientists-try-to-answer-why-dutch-people-are-so-tall
One theory is "all the cycling". True story. Others say Dutch women have a sexual thing for tall men, more than other women. No one knows
Indeed it has been postulated that the high rate of type 2 diabetes in those from the subcontinent is because there is a biological advantage in rapid weight gain in lands where the "hungry gap" is six months or more.
And them it came west to Greece, then Italy, then up to Northern Europe. Not forgetting ofcourse, the very advanced Indian and other Asian civilisations, or that a lot of the early Celtic and Germanic peoples also seemed to have a lot interesting going on. But the first centre of gravity seemed to be in the middle east and asia ( and Egypt ), followed by southern europe.
I don't claim to know. I've read a lot on this subject. It is always vexatious. Indeed it is near intractable, now, as few reputable scientists will go near the topic, for fear of being cancelled
"Hey, I want to do some research on possible race differences in IQ" is not a popular pitch for boffins in labs, not these days. And for understandable reasons. Echoes of the Nazis and eugenics. Ugh. However it does mean we are largely left in the dark, with only our emotional reactions to guide us. You can see that right here, right now, on PB
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12278411/How-low-JSO-Woman-showers-George-Osborne-new-bride-Thea-Rogers-orange-confetti.html
a, b, c, ch, d, .......
Most people will never get it while a minority will get it immediately. I'd like to think the latter are smarter than the former, but modesty forbids.
It measures IQ.
Rate of religion amongst those aged 18 to 45 is key to maintaining replacement level + birthrates and right now the highest average IQ nations are far less religious than they were 100 years ago and their birthrate has declined accordingly
I find it easier (and less explosive and angering) to focus on the one obvious outlier. Ashkenazi Jews. They have an average IQ of 115, one whole standard deviation above the norm. That's a massive difference. And it is, of course, reflected in their out-performance in multiple fields, from chess to maths, from Nobel Prizes to Fortune 500 CEOs to Hollywood moguls. Ashkenazi Jews are phenomenally successful in many fields of life - which is one reason they got persecuted everywhere. Too competitive
I am largely persuaded by the various theories that explain this. The persecution actually reinforced Jewish smartness, it meant that only the smartest survived. The persecution meant that the Jews themselves became the most literate community on earth, for a while, rabbis were more highly prized than warriors or leaders (because Jews weren't allowed to be warriors or leaders), so clever rabbis had more kids, rather than guys good with swords, and so on. Eugenics was FORCED on Jewish people
There are all sorts of forms of constructive or creative - or indeed emotional or intuitive - intelligence that it has no clue of. This is why it tends to be favoured by a certain geekily self-important subset, to be brutally honest. This isn't to say that it doesn't measure anything, but the idea that a concept so complex as intelligence can be so boiled down is itself, not necessarily to me an indication of the greatest sophistication of intelligence, I would argue.
So it IS measuring *something*, and possibly something important. But what the F is it? Does it just mean you are simply good at tests so you will be good at exams so you will go to a good uni and a good caerer, so on? Or does high IQ at age 10 mean something more, that you have notably speedy and accurate reasoning, more than the average kid?
That is where no one agrees, or, likely, ever will agree. Perhaps we will have to wait for ChatGPT8 with its IQ of 38,281 to finally explain it all to us, in a way we will be obliged to accept
Then there's this:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-firms-admit-using-divining-rods-to-find-leaks-and-pipes
It's not just that IQ is "heavily slanted" to this or that. It *is* an average performance on tests for arithmetical, visuo-spatial, and linguistic skills. Emotional skills and intuition play no part in it whatsoever.
Is that the sort of thing you write for a PhD in sociology?
Fair enough. I might even agree. And, if so, that's no small thing. It means IQ is useful as a measure, for a start
To my mind, the whole debate would be better off it we removed the word "intelligence". It's too judgemental, emotive and loaded - and simultaneously vague. We should call it Tishpop Type A (= good scores in IQ tests age 10)
Congrats, you have lots of Tishpop Type A. You will do well at certain things in the future. This person has Dishyfab Type C, they might well do better at other things. And so on.
Recent polling show the Farmers-Citizen Movement is on course to become the equal largest Dutch party"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/07/08/dutch-farmers-ready-for-election-after-coalition-falls/
And then German speaking countries, who were some of the first to emancipate Jewish people, had an incredible array of talented figures emerge. No wonder Churchill thought the Nazis were beating themselves with sending so many scientists from the Jewish community into exile.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency
Alcohol during pregnancy can reduce a child's IQ. In one of Tony Hillerman's mysteries, detective Jim Chee comes across a boy with fetal alcohol syndrome, who is being raised by his grandfather. Apparently that is common enough on the Navjo reservation so that the detective recongnizes the syndrome, immediately.
(The grandfather had gotten drunk during a celebration of his birthday, and hit and killed a man. Chee, who is supposed to arrest him, instead helps to cover up some of the evidence, because the grandfather is the only person taking care of the boy. And because the grandfather is sending cash, anonymously, to the man's family.)
There is some evidence that continuing marijuana use reduces IQs. I've been wondering recently if that explains the "reverse Flynn effect".