But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
You'd rather people went hungry than we had food banks? Well, it's a view....clearly, one shared by the last Labour Govt., who just couldn't countenance the flak of people going "to food banks to collect stuff on its "use by" date. There are many rocks you can throw at this Govt., but bemoaning the rise in people getting fed by food banks is just crass.
I've never understood the opposition to food banks, from those who are usually all in favour of charity. Is it not a mark of a civilised society that we look after those not as fortunate as ourselves?
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
Business is a completely different skill set to democratic politics. The list of successful people in one of these who goes on to be successful in the other is very short. I cannot see why Trump will be the exception, and the fact that he is surrounding himself with other business people makes it less rather than more likely that he will succeed.
The science is far from settled. I think the point of bringing it up is to wind-up lefties. The way I see it, there are many forms of intelligence. I could not even begin to do an IQ test, my eyes just glaze over. If that makes me thick, so be it.
My IQ was tested as a 4 year old child...... it was really low, borderline learning needs....still I managed to get straight A's at school, always top of my class (top grades at a grammar school), sail through an Economics Degree, get two other Masters including an MBA...all doing minimal work. And yes, I was the youngest Director at the time at work, and amass a self made business on the side which has enabled me to effectively retire at the age of 42, whilst also posting here...
I am not sure if I have ever done one, but when I look at them online I just lose the will to live. My guess is that were I to struggle to through I would be whatever average is at best. My mind just does not work in that way. However, I have managed to get a good degree, to build a good life for myself and my family, and help build a very successful business. I get huge pleasure from reading, watching great films, TV and plays, visiting museums and galleries, and having interesting conversations/debates about a whole load of things. I can also write 4,000 words a day and manage a team of journalists and researchers. I am not after more than that. I have been blessed. East Asians tend to do best at IQ tests. Having spent quite a bit of time there, I am not sure that having high IQ intelligence is necessarily a game-changer, to be honest.
The film/book 'Primary Colours' had this right years ago, in a scene where the Clinton character meets a group of voters in a disused factory somewhere in rust belt:
"Thank you for coming tonight.
I know you work hard and have little time to rest.
Some of us got more time than we'd like.
Right, I understand.
Since this factory closed, how many of you have found work?
Raise your hands.
How many of you work jobs that just pay the rent,
no matter how many hours you work?
My mama worked jobs like that after my daddy died.
I remember her coming home from work just bone weary.
I know she wanted to play with me and ask me about school .
But sometimes you' re too tired to do anything but blob out
In front of the tube.
Crowd: You got that right.
Crowd: Yeah!
I don't have to tell you how hard it is to find work. . .
or anything at all about hard times.
so I'm going to do something really outrageous.
I'm going to tell the truth.
I know what you' re thinking.
He must be really desperate to do that.
But if you've had to swallow enough sh-garbage-
Crowd: You can say Shit.
Crowd: We' re X-rated.
Me, too, if you believe the papers.
Here's the truth.
No politician can re-open this factory or bring back the shipyard jobs. . .
or make your union strong again.
No politician can make it the way it was.
Because we now live in a world without economic borders.
Push a button in New York and a billion dollars moves to Tokyo.
In that world, muscle jobs go where muscle labor is cheep,
and that is not here.
So to compete, you have to exercise a different muscle
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
BBC Archive #OTD 1982 F1 drivers take strike action. While Niki Lauda et al escape the race via bus, a partially dressed James Hunt gave his view https://t.co/4a9LcaQCKe
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
Historically the odds are he loses Congress in 2018 but is re elected in 2020
Possibly Congress will not be that friendly even now if it has 'conventional' Republicans. A 'Maverick' POTUS, Republican Senate and Democrat H of R seems to count as checks and balances.
Rob Edwards is a very reputable journalist. The other people interviewed seem to have found Trump to be a 'neighbour from hell'.
No, I cannot see this being successfully enough suppressed for four years for him to win again, although I probably wouldn't bet on him stepping down and the odds on 2010 may not be juicy enough to tie up money for 4 yrs.
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
I'm really worried about the UK's position post-Brexit. I'm praying that we don't find ourselves isolated. It's in everybody's best interest that May succeeds.
On your last point: I'm with you there. Did you hear about the WH removing its page on LGBT rights after Trump's inauguration?
However, post Brexit, I think the EU will become like the Elysian fields - everything will be better there (irrespective of whether it is or not) and this will shape future thinking.
The USA is rich, free, by many accounts successful and a desirable place to live and work. It also shares many cultural and historic commonalities with the UK. Nevertheless, there is negligible demand within the British electorate for us to become the 51st state. I think many of the reasons that apply to that choice will become increasingly relevant to our relationship with Europe.
Firstly, the EU - or whatever it has morphed into - will look more obviously "foreign" in 20-30 years' time. They might look broadly look like us demographically, but they don't sound like us or seem to think quite like us - there's a distinct worldview, perhaps one that seems further apart from ours than it really is partly because we have enough in common to spot the fairly minor differences. They are not us and we are not them.
I think if the EU is to be successful it will have to become more federal and state-like. I can't see how the economics works out any other way. That would make joining the EU have a distinctly harder and more transformative edge - not just a fluffy internationally-cooperative free trade area, but the rejection of the idea of Britain as a nation-state in its own right. A particularly unattractive option if eurofederalism gets eurofudged in a way that gives the EU many state-like characteristics, but still allows bigger, richer nations to dominate decision-making and wield this to hammer, rather than support, states like Greece. That doesn't strike me as an unlikely course of events. Lots of folk, especially young ones, seem to hold to the line that "Brexit will make Britain weaker and poorer, while freeing Europe to reshape its future in a way that makes it richer and strong - therefore Britain will eventually rejoin Europe". Even if their premise is right (I'm not 100% convinced, but I'll run with it) the conclusion relies on the average British voter finding the manner Europe treats its weaker, poorer members an attractive one. If this means bullying, being stripped of control, and getting the full-on "Greek treatment", then I'm not sure it will be such a vote-winner.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
Is there much precedent for a President simply resigning or retiring? I'd have thought even if Trump becomes unpopular, he's likely to at least serve a full term. Short of a full blown scandal like Nixon leading to Trump's early downfall, what's to stop him staying even if he becomes hated?
FWIW, I don't think Trump's popularity is likely to decline very significantly over the first few years of his Presidency. Out of interest, does anyone know the figures for premature ends to Presidency? I know there have been 4 assassinations, but how many have been successfully impeached, resigned for any reason, died in office, etc?
I also think the EU is likely to become uglier as it gets stronger and faces tough choices about the exertion of hard and soft power - c.f. British perceptions of "the Land of the Free" circa 1925 - circa 1975. Its expansion into, and attempts to digest, the Balkans bring serious risks. Aside from poverty and corruption (not just Albania, it's an issue across much of the region), there are political flashpoints in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. It's in the nature of that region that there are going to be crisis conferences, but the first "hot" internal or near-external deployment of EU armed forces is a serious possibility.
The EU is one of the biggest players, perhaps the biggest, in the Western Med, which could draw it into all manner of issues (continuation of the migrant crisis, instability in Libya and perhaps Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco in future). Its expansion also sets the EU on course to partake in Great Power games with Russia in the Baltic and eastern Europe (particularly Ukraine, but also Moldova and Belarus when political transition occurs there), and with Russia, Turkey and ultimately perhaps Iran in the the Middle East (various), Eastern Med (Cyprus?) and Caucasus (Georgia, perhaps Armenia).
In terms of Britain ever wanting to rejoin, it seems the best hope of that would be for the EU to become not just richer, but more flexible and focused on trade, leaving members essentially free to choose their own socioeconomic objectives and methods. That seems to be the very opposite of the direction of travel. Federalism may give the EU a bigger role in world affairs - I note that the europhiles invariably say bigger "voice", but voice comes from power and with power come obligations, choices and a degree of realpolitikal ugliness. To what extent is Europe ready for this? And to what extent would this be attractive to a British voter?
A particular paradox is that this incremental power would be coming over a period when Europe declines as a proportion of global population, and more rapidly still, declines as a share of the global economy. If anything that's a driver of integration - the rationale in Brussels is that the only way to stand up with (or to) India or China or the USA is to stand together. But coupled with Britain's trade patterns entering a long-term trend where the Rest of the World is increasingly important and European trade might bottom out at 25-35% of the total, the EU's relative economic and demographic decline makes remarriage on their terms less tempting. If reentry brought us under the aegis of the world's most economically, politically and militarily powerful union, there'd be bigger gains to balance against freedoms and flexibilities lost. Yet that didn't persuade us to sign up to the 51st state solution in the post-Suez era when similar considerations were in play. Would we accept a lower prize?
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
This will be controversial but I really don't think people should be having kids in their fifties and sixties.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
Business is a completely different skill set to democratic politics. The list of successful people in one of these who goes on to be successful in the other is very short. I cannot see why Trump will be the exception, and the fact that he is surrounding himself with other business people makes it less rather than more likely that he will succeed.
I do not think there could be a more dangerous and uncertain time for the EU both in it's security and ability to trade with the US. It is for these reasons I think that in just 24 hours the whole Brexit debate has changed and now the EU will be seeking joint agreement on EU security and trade with an Independent UK as soon as is possible.
Indeed as I commented earlier it is not beyond reality that EU companies may want to set up in the UK to benefit from a US trade deal.
Interesting that Trump has already re-instated Churchill's bust in the oval office
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
This will be controversial but I really don't think people should be having kids in their fifties and sixties.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
Voter suppression is one of the things that does get my blood boiling. It is a deep stain on US politics.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW ag. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
By 2100 we may even have become part computer
Some experts think it's the computers making us dimmer (and not the fault of selfish clever people refusing to reproduce). I have some sympathy with that notion. I am sure my memory is less acute than it was, simply because I know I can pick up a smartphone and get any question, on any topic, answered immediately, with astonishing accuracy.
Why bother retaining and recalling info when a phone can do it all for you? Likewise calculators, etc
I refuse to blame my failing memory on age or my vast and daily intake of wine. That's just silly.
True but then again 30 years ago nobody had anywhere near the access to information they can get from the Internet, even from the biggest public libraries
Good morning all Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place. 2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.
That's wrong. I was still tipping Trump at 6/4. It's true that on balance I thought that Hillary had the better chance of winning (and the fact that she won the popular vote by as much as she did is evidence that she did - she just ballsed up her Firewall states), but the idea that I said she "could never lose" is bullshit.
Hillary won the popular vote mainly due to one state of the union; California, helped a little by Oregon and Washington State.
California is a huge outlier. Compared to 1996, the State has shifted towards the Democrats by 20%, while the rest of the USA has shifted to the Republicans by 8%.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
This will be controversial but I really don't think people should be having kids in their fifties and sixties.
That's not particularly controversial.
What's also barely mentioned in these cases is the amount of medical intervention required to achieve the result. A woman in her fifties doesn't often just become pregnant in the usual way.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
This will be controversial but I really don't think people should be having kids in their fifties and sixties.
Ideally no as they are nearer the age of grandparents than parents but if they have achieved their career goals and have the time for a child they had less of before and can afford it they will. Mick Nagger has become a father at 70 and if men can do it at an older age women will try too
I've lost count of the number of pbERs who have said they would love to see such an outcome happening because it'll wind up lefties. It is just juvenile stuff.
As said, I'd love AGW to be wrong. I'd love it if austerity worked, and the UK was now thriving with a properly funded NHS. I would love to walk through Oxford and not see the bodies, predominantly young people, sleeping homeless, or the proliferation of food banks...I'd love to see the UK continue to be an influential player in global institutions because fundamentally I think we bring a unique perspective....
I like to be proved wrong...on Brexit, Trump, the EU, AGW, ISISS....
But I fundamentally know that it has been a liberal voice that has driven rights for LBTG, ethnicities, women, children, environmental causes...
You'd rather people went hungry than we had food banks? Well, it's a view....clearly, one shared by the last Labour Govt., who just couldn't countenance the flak of people going "to food banks to collect stuff on its "use by" date. There are many rocks you can throw at this Govt., but bemoaning the rise in people getting fed by food banks is just crass.
I've never understood the opposition to food banks, from those who are usually all in favour of charity. Is it not a mark of a civilised society that we look after those not as fortunate as ourselves?
Jesus...you should listen to yourselves.
Let's bring back the Work Houses for the Poor...
You really are being a complete prat on this. Here's food, about to go to landfill. Here's hungry people. Under Labour, it went to landfill. Or to feed pigs, as swill. Pigs eating fine dining, whilst the poor starve. Defend that.
Under this Govt, it gets eaten. By people in need. Not pigs.
Now, please, just STFU with your ill-informed political point-scoring about food banks, as you tuck into your fine Italian dining. Better still, come back and help distribute it.
The science is far from settled. I think the point of bringing it up is to wind-up lefties. The way I see it, there are many forms of intelligence. I could not even begin to do an IQ test, my eyes just glaze over. If that makes me thick, so be it.
My IQ was tested as a 4 year old child...... it was really low, borderline learning needs....still I managed to get straight A's at school, always top of my class (top grades at a grammar school), sail through an Economics Degree, get two other Masters including an MBA...all doing minimal work. And yes, I was the youngest Director at the time at work, and amass a self made business on the side which has enabled me to effectively retire at the age of 42, whilst also posting here...
I am not sure if I have ever done one, but when I look at them online I just lose the will to live. My guess is that were I to struggle to through I would be whatever average is at best. My mind just does not work in that way. However, I have managed to get a good degree, to build a good life for myself and my family, and help build a very successful business. I get huge pleasure from reading, watching great films, TV and plays, visiting museums and galleries, and having interesting conversations/debates about a whole load of things. I can also write 4,000 words a day and manage a team of journalists and researchers. I am not after more than that. I have been blessed. East Asians tend to do best at IQ tests. Having spent quite a bit of time there, I am not sure that having high IQ intelligence is necessarily a game-changer, to be honest.
The astonishing and unprecedented postwar growth rates achieved by Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong - and now China and Vietnam - imply that you might be wrong.
All done with massive financial backing from westerners and/or by adopting western-style economic and fiscal policies. That is, by copying and relying on people with lower IQs on average. In any case, that was not my point. The societies themselves are not ones I would care to live in: very high pressure, very homogenous, very conformist.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
Voter suppression is one of the things that does get my blood boiling. It is a deep stain on US politics.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
That stat really is depressing. Even more depressing is that Obama *did* nothing about it. Under him, US race relations got WORSE. Slavery really is the Original Sin which bedevils America, and maybe always will.
What is worse even EX-felons are barred from voting FOR LIFE. In florida that means 1.5 MILLION black ex felons are stopped from voting........something deeply wrong about that.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
Business is a completely different skill set to democratic politics. The list of successful people in one of these who goes on to be successful in the other is very short. I cannot see why Trump will be the exception, and the fact that he is surrounding himself with other business people makes it less rather than more likely that he will succeed.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
Voter suppression is one of the things that does get my blood boiling. It is a deep stain on US politics.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
A favourite memory from Brighton Uni when we had a discussion on Prisoners being able to vote or not, was one of the students saying "What about people who are in prison but not guilty?"
I think they might be more concerned about wrongly imprisoned!
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Alan Kaufman's book Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence amongst others, but there is a fair summary on Wikipedia.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
This will be controversial but I really don't think people should be having kids in their fifties and sixties.
It's a paper written by some of the most respected climate scientists in the world and published by the Royal Society in 2013. Its conclusion:
"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change."
This is very much the mainstream view, and it is well supported by calculation, modelling and palaeoclimatic evidence. Yes, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but, according to our best predictions, it is the most likely scenario. You'd have to be insane to simply ignore the possibility.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
Historically the odds are he loses Congress in 2018 but is re elected in 2020
Possibly Congress will not be that friendly even now if it has 'conventional' Republicans. A 'Maverick' POTUS, Republican Senate and Democrat H of R seems to count as checks and balances.
Rob Edwards is a very reputable journalist. The other people interviewed seem to have found Trump to be a 'neighbour from hell'.
No, I cannot see this being successfully enough suppressed for four years for him to win again, although I probably wouldn't bet on him stepping down and the odds on 2010 may not be juicy enough to tie up money for 4 yrs.
Everyone knew Trump was hard nosed and aggressive even before he got elected
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
Business is a completely different skill set to democratic politics. The list of successful people in one of these who goes on to be successful in the other is very short. I cannot see why Trump will be the exception, and the fact that he is surrounding himself with other business people makes it less rather than more likely that he will succeed.
Eisenhower ?
General not businessman
Yes I know, but his point was the difference between the "people doing as their told" world of business and the wheeling and dealing required in politics. That should be doubly the case of anyone coming from the military.
If Corbyn's broad lack of appeal, and the fact that he has destroyed the Parliamentary chances of the Labour Party doesn't deter Nick, then..........I'm afraid it's not a badge of honour to say you are loyal to him, really Nick it isn't...
BTW...WTF do people always mention Andy Burnham as the only alternative? Starmer, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, Hilary Benn...there are a number of potentially strong leaders who would put up a much better fight.
Note to Nick....leadership matters, ratings matter, perception matters. David Miliband would now be PM and Brexit would never have happened in an alternative universe.
Not looking for badges of honour, you know, merely saying what I think as one bit of the kaleidoscope of views that makes up PB. But a relevant response is that none of the people you mention have actually stood for the leadership except David M, who did so after infinite vacillation. I'm not prepared even to consider supporting anyone who hasn't actually had the nerve to stand - if you aren't prepared to stand unless you expect to win, you lack something essential in leadership. Andy B has at least had a go. And that applies to some of the armchair pundits here too - how many actually bother to stand for election to promote the views that they urge on the rest of us?
On a less contentious note, this piece on the decline of traditional statistics and polling is interesting regardless of our political persuasion:
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Alan Kaufman's book Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence amongst others, but there is a fair summary on Wikipedia.
This is very much the mainstream view, and it is well supported by calculation, modelling and palaeoclimatic evidence. Yes, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but, according to our best predictions, it is the most likely scenario. You'd have to be insane to simply ignore the possibility.
The question that is regularly glossed over is that if we take the above as read, is any change we can make, at a sustainable cost in a liberal democracy, actually going to make any difference. Spending trillions to reduce probabilities by tiny percentages, or reduce sea level rise by barely measureable amounts is never going to win the consent of the voters.
I have seen figures bandied around to the effect that an expenditure of $50tn globally would perhaps reduce the change in sea level by around 5mm over the next century. The question the voters will want answered is how much of a real risk is an extra 5mm rise compared to what we could do with our share of $50tn.
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Alan Kaufman's book Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence amongst others, but there is a fair summary on Wikipedia.
I like the data that the same person tested twice only has a 95% correlation with themselves.
Yes Well I guess when you are giving someone what amounts to a batch of math, english and spacial reasoning problems its a bit much to ask them to get exactly the same number right on consecutive presentations.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
Voter suppression is one of the things that does get my blood boiling. It is a deep stain on US politics.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
A favourite memory from Brighton Uni when we had a discussion on Prisoners being able to vote or not, was one of the students saying "What about people who are in prison but not guilty?"
I think they might be more concerned about wrongly imprisoned!
» show previous quotes That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Wealth of literature particularly out of Scandanavia given the quality of their twin registers.
In my field of mental illness,twin studies provide valuable information on the influence of genetics/environment on development of serious mental disorders.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
Voter suppression is one of the things that does get my blood boiling. It is a deep stain on US politics.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
A favourite memory from Brighton Uni when we had a discussion on Prisoners being able to vote or not, was one of the students saying "What about people who are in prison but not guilty?"
I think they might be more concerned about wrongly imprisoned!
I could temporarily do with a conviction to excuse myself from jury service. I've offered to defer it for 2 years until I have a state pension but the system seems incapable of such flexible thinking.
This is very much the mainstream view, and it is well supported by calculation, modelling and palaeoclimatic evidence. Yes, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but, according to our best predictions, it is the most likely scenario. You'd have to be insane to simply ignore the possibility.
The question that is regularly glossed over is that if we take the above as read, is any change we can make, at a sustainable cost in a liberal democracy, actually going to make any difference. Spending trillions to reduce probabilities by tiny percentages, or reduce sea level rise by barely measureable amounts is never going to win the consent of the voters.
I have seen figures bandied around to the effect that an expenditure of $50tn globally would perhaps reduce the change in sea level by around 5mm over the next century. The question the voters will want answered is how much of a real risk is an extra 5mm rise compared to what we could do with our share of $50tn.
You've got to wonder about the rationality of economists who argue that actions to prevent most of the planet from becoming uninhabitable are simply too expensive.
If Corbyn's broad lack of appeal, and the fact that he has destroyed the Parliamentary chances of the Labour Party doesn't deter Nick, then..........I'm afraid it's not a badge of honour to say you are loyal to him, really Nick it isn't...
BTW...WTF do people always mention Andy Burnham as the only alternative? Starmer, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, Hilary Benn...there are a number of potentially strong leaders who would put up a much better fight.
Note to Nick....leadership matters, ratings matter, perception matters. David Miliband would now be PM and Brexit would never have happened in an alternative universe.
Not looking for badges of honour, you know, merely saying what I think as one bit of the kaleidoscope of views that makes up PB. But a relevant response is that none of the people you mention have actually stood for the leadership except David M, who did so after infinite vacillation. I'm not prepared even to consider supporting anyone who hasn't actually had the nerve to stand - if you aren't prepared to stand unless you expect to win, you lack something essential in leadership. Andy B has at least had a go. And that applies to some of the armchair pundits here too - how many actually bother to stand for election to promote the views that they urge on the rest of us?
On a less contentious note, this piece on the decline of traditional statistics and polling is interesting regardless of our political persuasion:
» show previous quotes That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Wealth of literature particularly out of Scandanavia given the quality of their twin registers.
In my field of mental illness,twin studies provide valuable information on the influence of genetics/environment on development of serious mental disorders.
Is the Steven Pinker story of the twins separated at an early age and brought up as Eastern European Jew and Carribbean Catholic bonafide? I think it is in the Blank Slate
This is very much the mainstream view, and it is well supported by calculation, modelling and palaeoclimatic evidence. Yes, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but, according to our best predictions, it is the most likely scenario. You'd have to be insane to simply ignore the possibility.
The question that is regularly glossed over is that if we take the above as read, is any change we can make, at a sustainable cost in a liberal democracy, actually going to make any difference. Spending trillions to reduce probabilities by tiny percentages, or reduce sea level rise by barely measureable amounts is never going to win the consent of the voters.
I have seen figures bandied around to the effect that an expenditure of $50tn globally would perhaps reduce the change in sea level by around 5mm over the next century. The question the voters will want answered is how much of a real risk is an extra 5mm rise compared to what we could do with our share of $50tn.
You've got to wonder about the rationality of economists who argue that actions to prevent most of the planet from becoming uninhabitable are simply too expensive.
Someone how I struggle with the idea of a 5mm difference in potential sea level rise making the difference between the planet being habitable or not.
As an aside, climate scientists in general suffer from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang) problem, considering where their current and future funding comes from.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
What is more interesting to me, these days, is the Flynn Effect. The discovery that IQs have been rising fast since 1900 (incidentally this strongly implies that environment is definitely an influence on IQ/intelligence).
It seems that the Flynn Effect has stopped. Indeed it might have reversed, and we are all getting stupider. Some say this is because smart women aren't having enough babies (so-called dysgenic drift)
It also suggests that by 2100 we will be drooling morons ruled by computers. So make the most of today.
I'll be on the look out for psychometric reports claiming that intelligence is inherited as well as governed by environment as the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the former as opposed to the latter.
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
Though there have been a number of recent reports of high flying career women having babies not only in their forties but even their fifties and sixties
This will be controversial but I really don't think people should be having kids in their fifties and sixties.
Straight from Yes Prime Minister. There was an episode based around exactly this scenario. If I remember correctly, in the episode the PM apologised to the Israeli ambassador for the UK voting for a motion criticising Israel against his (the PM's) express instructions. The Ambassador replied, "Don't worry, Jim. We know that an Instruction from the Prime Minister, becomes a recommendation from the Foreign Secretary which becomes a suggestion to the UK's delegation at the UN".
I find it astonishing that Jay and Lynn in writing their programmes were so close to the realities of government. It is even more astonishing that the same sort of tensions and events are still being played out in the same way 30 years later.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
Carter was not the only President in the 20th Century to serve only one term. George H Bush only served for four years before Clinton beat him.
Herbert Hoover only served a single term too - and Gerald Ford failed to get elected in 1976. On the other hand , their parties were in office for more than one term - unlike Carter in 1980.
This is very much the mainstream view, and it is well supported by calculation, modelling and palaeoclimatic evidence. Yes, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but, according to our best predictions, it is the most likely scenario. You'd have to be insane to simply ignore the possibility.
The question that is regularly glossed over is that if we take the above as read, is any change we can make, at a sustainable cost in a liberal democracy, actually going to make any difference. Spending trillions to reduce probabilities by tiny percentages, or reduce sea level rise by barely measureable amounts is never going to win the consent of the voters.
I have seen figures bandied around to the effect that an expenditure of $50tn globally would perhaps reduce the change in sea level by around 5mm over the next century. The question the voters will want answered is how much of a real risk is an extra 5mm rise compared to what we could do with our share of $50tn.
You've got to wonder about the rationality of economists who argue that actions to prevent most of the planet from becoming uninhabitable are simply too expensive.
Someone how I struggle with the idea of a 5mm difference in potential sea level rise making the difference between the planet being habitable or not.
As an aside, climate scientists in general suffer from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang) problem, considering where their current and future funding comes from.
Did you not look at the paper I referenced? We're not talking about 5mm differences in sea level; we're talking about temperatures that make human life impossible over most of the planet. Take a read:
"It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity."
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
Canada is the only place outside of the UK that I'd ever consider emigrating to. Well, at least until I read the post about the fault line that Robert posted yesterday. Scary.
I'd live in Capri for half the year, mind. That is heaven on earth for me.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
Canada is the only place outside of the UK that I'd ever consider emigrating to. Well, at least until I read the post about the fault line that Robert posted yesterday. Scary.
I'd live in Capri for half the year, mind. That is heaven on earth for me.
The basil-infused Parmigiano I had there was heaven on a plate....
But even Blakemore accepts that there is a difference. DUH. In the quote you gave. QED.
Anyhoo, I'm not here to argue this difficult and painful topic, whether the difference is genetic or environmental, what IQ tests really show, blah blah, the point I'm trying to make is that science is not this pure realm of absolute logic that some (particularly AGW advocates) like to make out.
Like any field of human endeavour it is subject to political, social and ethical pressure, introducing bias and subjectivity, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes this can be because certain questions are too controversial to investigate, sometimes this can be because financial incentives steer scientists into particular kinds of research, and towards particular conclusions.
The scientific method is a great thing. It is not perfect.
From the PDFs I've found on psychometrics, they are arguing that there are innate racial differences. Blakemore doesn't accept that there are innate racial differences. There is a huge difference between arguing that there are innate racial differences between the races on intelligence, to arguing that intelligence is governed by environmental factors.
I'm not getting involved in your wider argument on science, it was just the race/intelligence argument which sparked my interest.
The consensus at the moment is that intelligence is partly inherited, AND partly a product of environment.
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Yes, that's pretty conclusive.
Although nutrition in the womb is also highly correlated with intelligence, so you need to account for that too.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
There is huge demand from Australians and Kiwis to come to London and in the case of the latter they can earn more to. Of course overall emigration from the UK to Australia is higher than the reverse because there is more space and better weather but London is a big bargaining chip as SeanT states
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Yet Southam supports unlimited free movement to Britain but thinks Aus, Can and NZ would be 'overrun with Brits'.
And isn't 'overrun' an interesting word.
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
Straight from Yes Prime Minister. There was an episode based around exactly this scenario. If I remember correctly, in the episode the PM apologised to the Israeli ambassador for the UK voting for a motion criticising Israel against his (the PM's) express instructions. The Ambassador replied, "Don't worry, Jim. We know that an Instruction from the Prime Minister, becomes a recommendation from the Foreign Secretary which becomes a suggestion to the UK's delegation at the UN".
I find it astonishing that Jay and Lynn in writing their programmes were so close to the realities of government. It is even more astonishing that the same sort of tensions and events are still being played out in the same way 30 years later.
Indeed.
I thought of that Yes, Prime Minister episode as well.
This story does suggest that the Foreign Office will often pursue what it believes is its own interests rather than actual government policy.
Which is, of course, the underlying story of YM and YPM.
BBC Archive #OTD 1982 F1 drivers take strike action. While Niki Lauda et al escape the race via bus, a partially dressed James Hunt gave his view https://t.co/4a9LcaQCKe
» show previous quotes That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86 Identical twins—Reared apart .76 Fraternal twins—Reared together .55 Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Wealth of literature particularly out of Scandanavia given the quality of their twin registers.
In my field of mental illness,twin studies provide valuable information on the influence of genetics/environment on development of serious mental disorders.
How fascinating - can you elaborate? I'm a big believer in environment determining behaviour/IQ.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Australia and New Zealand have very stringent immigration requirements for Brits and turn down many of those who apply to emigrate. Many more do not even bother applying. London is a great bargaining chip, but not for free movement. If a deal is to be done it would be around long-term, time-limited visas, rather than free movement. But we could do that now if we wanted to.
We've got at least 4 more years of this humiliating boot-licking of Trump. So much for all that extra post-brexit sovereignty, we are going to subcontract it all out to the US anyway.
Meanwhile, Hacker meets with the Foreign Secretary, who also knows nothing of St. George's Island. Perplexed, the PM orders him to start asking questions. He also expresses his wish that the FO abstain from voting on an upcoming United Nations motion condemning the State of Israel. He argues that the Palestinians are just as much at fault and that Britain should steer a neutral course. The Foreign Secretary advises against this, as "the Foreign Office wouldn’t wear it."
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
The Australian politician that seriously suggested FoM for UK citizens would find his career was over for good within 15 minutes. Australia has no desire to import coffin dodgers, NEETs and taxi drivers from South Yorkshire with a surfeit of Qs in their surnames.
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Swings from 2000:
wv 17.93 tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor) arka 10.75 miss 7.85 kent 7.36 ri 7.36 okla 7.26 alab 6.72 loui 5.99 iow 4.91 nd 4.07 sd 3.53 wyo 3.12 mich 2.68 conn 2.67 penn 2.65 ohio 2.52 ny 1.97 indi 1.81 nj 1.55 main 1.22 miss 0.83 dela 0.81 flor 0.69 wisc 0.58 min 0.44 kans 0.15 mass 0 nh -0.82 sc -0.84 nebr -1.32 ariz -1.36 illi -1.99 mon -2.27 neva -2.98 geor -3.27 idah -3.84 nm -4.08 mary -4.16 nc -4.55 oreg -5.28 wash -5.35 texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor) colo -6.62 hawa -6.64 virg -6.68 alas -7.89 verm -8.02 cali -8.75 utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Yet Southam supports unlimited free movement to Britain but thinks Aus, Can and NZ would be 'overrun with Brits'.
And isn't 'overrun' an interesting word.
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
Most of Australia is desert, most of Canada is forest, lake and tundra. New Zealand is a relatively poor country that struggles to support its current population. My use of the term overrun was to convey the attitude there would be in those countries at the thought of free movement with the UK. I am sorry you are such a snowflake.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
It's too far away for it to be an issue. They're not gonna be flooded with Brits. And Aussies REALLY want free movement to London.
I don't think it will fly just because no one will be bold enough, but it would work perfectly well.
Australia and New Zealand have very stringent immigration requirements for Brits and turn down many of those who apply to emigrate. Many more do not even bother applying. London is a great bargaining chip, but not for free movement. If a deal is to be done it would be around long-term, time-limited visas, rather than free movement. But we could do that now if we wanted to.
How long before we get a UKIP poster saying 3 million Kiwis could swamp us?
Following my last post, It's really striking how well Bill Clinton performed with blue collar White voters, twenty years ago, in rural/small town/medium town America, compared with his wife's performance in 2016. He won Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa by double-digit margins. He also carried Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio. All of those now look out of reach or the Democrats, apart from Arizona and Pennsylvania.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
Bill had electric charisma. Like some other PBers, I've seen him in person - and he is the light in the room, makes everyone think he's just looking at them, a massive seducer whatever your sex.
It's a talent that jumps all boundaries - Hillary was a cold fish machine.
This should be a no-brainer, we should offer Oz, NZ and maybe Canada Free Movement in toto.
They would not want that - they would be overrun with Brits.
If Aussies want free movement to London there has to be free movement of Brits to Australia in return
Yes, that was my point. There are more of us than them and there are more of us that would want to live there permanently than there are them who would want to emigrate here permanently. Same applies to both NZ and Canada, too.
Canada is the only place outside of the UK that I'd ever consider emigrating to. Well, at least until I read the post about the fault line that Robert posted yesterday. Scary.
I'd live in Capri for half the year, mind. That is heaven on earth for me.
I'd very happily live in New Zealand or in one the Canadian maritime states - Nova Scotia is the Nads. Australia is too hot, too relentlessly sunny and too full of Australians and other poisonous things. There are also lots and lots of signs telling you that you can't do things.
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
Let them protest, as long as they behave themselves. People should be allowed to shout about the Government if they wish.
One of the things that went pretty much unmentioned yesterday, although it was in Trump's speech, was the way in which power was handed over. Obama and Trump have clearly hated each other for nearly a decade, yet everything was handed over peacefully.
Obama said he was struck by how GW Bush had done the same for him in 2008, so after another nasty campaign they put their differences aside in the National interest of a smooth handover. It's to the immense credit of both men involved yesterday that they see their role as temporary custodians of the highest office.
So, are we now required to back the US in all matters of foreign policy, or there'll be consequences?
I wouldn't worry, but not for the reasons you might suppose. I vividly recall a withering conversation with a senior at one of the US TLAs. We have no power projection worthy of the name. Our Navy is pitiful, as is our heavy lift capability. Our armed forces lost their rep in Basra. The US (or rather, a decent sized chunk of their IndMil complex sees the Pacific as the defining region for 21st century conflict; we would struggle to deploy any forces outside of the Med.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with .
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
Let them protest, as long as they behave themselves. People should be allowed to shout about the Government if they wish.
One of the things that went pretty much unmentioned yesterday, although it was in Trump's speech, was the way in which power was handed over. Obama and Trump have clearly hated each other for nearly a decade, yet everything was handed over peacefully.
Obama said he was struck by how GW Bush had done the same for him in 2008, so after another nasty campaign they put their differences aside in the National interest of a smooth handover. It's to the immense credit of both men involved yesterday that they see their role as temporary custodians of the highest office.
I have no problem with them protesting, although its not their government, I just don't see how it can be described as "what democracy looks like".. maybe I don't know what democracy means!!
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
Let them protest, as long as they behave themselves. People should be allowed to shout about the Government if they wish.
One of the things that went pretty much unmentioned yesterday, although it was in Trump's speech, was the way in which power was handed over. Obama and Trump have clearly hated each other for nearly a decade, yet everything was handed over peacefully.
Obama said he was struck by how GW Bush had done the same for him in 2008, so after another nasty campaign they put their differences aside in the National interest of a smooth handover. It's to the immense credit of both men involved yesterday that they see their role as temporary custodians of the highest office.
My highlight of Inauguration was TV news cutting away from Obama speechifying about himself yet again elsewhere, [most inappropriate IMO] to Trump signing orders in Oval Office.
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
Let them protest, as long as they behave themselves. People should be allowed to shout about the Government if they wish.
One of the things that went pretty much unmentioned yesterday, although it was in Trump's speech, was the way in which power was handed over. Obama and Trump have clearly hated each other for nearly a decade, yet everything was handed over peacefully.
Obama said he was struck by how GW Bush had done the same for him in 2008, so after another nasty campaign they put their differences aside in the National interest of a smooth handover. It's to the immense credit of both men involved yesterday that they see their role as temporary custodians of the highest office.
I have no problem with them protesting, I just don't see how it can be described as "what democracy looks like".. maybe I don't know what democracy means!!
(or looks like)
People feely assembling to express views which run contrary to those of their government is precisely what democracy looks like. It is not allowed in undemocratic countries.
I'll be surprised if he lasts a full term, if he does then I can't see him being a two term president. A lot of these people who vote for him are going to quickly realize he's all talk.
You have fvck all basis for saying that, other than hope. He might disappoint. Or he might do as he did in getting himself elected - surround himself with very smart people who threaded a way to win the Presidency whilst losing the popular vote. Former heads of Exxon aren't the sort of people who want to be associated with failure - still less, the now back-in-the-fold Goldman Sachs.
It seems to me what really terrifies you about Donald Trump is that he might just succeed.
He may well succeed to the extent of being able to win the presidency again by getting fewer votes than his opponent because he has focused all his energies on looking after particular demographics in particular swing states and has enabled further voter suppression by the GOP. Whether that is good for America as a whole - and the rest of us - is another thing entirely.
Voter suppression is one of the things that does get my blood boiling. It is a deep stain on US politics.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
Is that not a somewhat disingenuous statistic that fails to take into account population growth?
In 1860 there were 31.4mn people in the USA. In 2016 there are 324.1mn people in the USA.
The US population has increased more than ten-fold.
In a sense it doesn't matter...most renewable energies are neutral, or at least more desirable than burning stuff (except of course destroying rain forest and replacing with plant oils). So Govt should encourage one and discourage the other.
The problem is that you have loony right wing nut jobs who just hate the govt interfering at all; they are so blinded by ideology, and they are desperate to believe that AGW is some lefty, liberal con.
The Alt Right in the USA and here hate liberals more than their real enemies. A crusade against AGW represents an ideological battle against lefties...but the Russians invading Ukraine, and threatening Europe...well that's not a problem...
That was my point earlier with all the pbERS loving to wind liberals up...they would much rather see liberals squirm than anything else (i.e. terrible policy). Repealing Obamacare with no alternative is another example.
Are renewable energies neutral?
Every puff of wind you extract from the airflow to turn into power changes the eco system. The power will do work and create heat to be dissipated into the atmosphere. The wind is stolen from the sea or land and less moisture evaporates so there is less natural cooling and a change to cloud formation. There is no such thing as free energy, and use of wind has the potential to change climate in a significant way. Every joule of solar power you extract well produce work and heat for mankind. Also the amount of natural heat from the sun that is radiated back into space will diminish. It isn't free. Capture and use of all energy sources have the potential to alter climate, even the bizarrely named green energies.
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
It's just a little bit bizarre. Wait the whole way through the year long presidential campaign until the guy is sworn in and places his backside in the presidential seat in the oval office - and THEN decide to have a march objecting to him ?!
What is this march supposed to achieve in any case except signal virtue, probably no one on it can vote against him, almost no one watching can vote against him, and pretty much no one watching it on TV can vote against him - and even those that can, now can't for four years!
I like Alistair Appleton, hence I follow him on twitter, but is today's march against Trump really "what democracy looks like"? I'd say the inauguration was that
Let them protest, as long as they behave themselves. People should be allowed to shout about the Government if they wish.
One of the things that went pretty much unmentioned yesterday, although it was in Trump's speech, was the way in which power was handed over. Obama and Trump have clearly hated each other for nearly a decade, yet everything was handed over peacefully.
Obama said he was struck by how GW Bush had done the same for him in 2008, so after another nasty campaign they put their differences aside in the National interest of a smooth handover. It's to the immense credit of both men involved yesterday that they see their role as temporary custodians of the highest office.
I have no problem with them protesting, I just don't see how it can be described as "what democracy looks like".. maybe I don't know what democracy means!!
(or looks like)
People feely assembling to express views which run contrary to those of their government is precisely what democracy looks like. It is not allowed in undemocratic countries.
I thought it was British people expressing views which run contrary to a foreign government?
My aunt - who has blonde hair - told me last year that when she visited Brussels she felt very uncomfortable when walking through part of the city. But I guess it's not an issue if you stay away from the ghettos.
Comments
Identical twins—Reared together .86
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
The Balkans.
@Joff
My IQ was tested as a 4 year old child...... it was really low, borderline learning needs....still I managed to get straight A's at school, always top of my class (top grades at a grammar school), sail through an Economics Degree, get two other Masters including an MBA...all doing minimal work. And yes, I was the youngest Director at the time at work, and amass a self made business on the side which has enabled me to effectively retire at the age of 42, whilst also posting here...
I am not sure if I have ever done one, but when I look at them online I just lose the will to live. My guess is that were I to struggle to through I would be whatever average is at best. My mind just does not work in that way. However, I have managed to get a good degree, to build a good life for myself and my family, and help build a very successful business. I get huge pleasure from reading, watching great films, TV and plays, visiting museums and galleries, and having interesting conversations/debates about a whole load of things. I can also write 4,000 words a day and manage a team of journalists and researchers. I am not after more than that. I have been blessed. East Asians tend to do best at IQ tests. Having spent quite a bit of time there, I am not sure that having high IQ intelligence is necessarily a game-changer, to be honest.
"Thank you for coming tonight.
I know you work hard and have little time to rest.
Some of us got more time than we'd like.
Right, I understand.
Since this factory closed, how many of you have found work?
Raise your hands.
How many of you work jobs that just pay the rent,
no matter how many hours you work?
My mama worked jobs like that after my daddy died.
I remember her coming home from work just bone weary.
I know she wanted to play with me and ask me about school .
But sometimes you' re too tired to do anything but blob out
In front of the tube.
Crowd: You got that right.
Crowd: Yeah!
I don't have to tell you how hard it is to find work. . .
or anything at all about hard times.
so I'm going to do something really outrageous.
I'm going to tell the truth.
I know what you' re thinking.
He must be really desperate to do that.
But if you've had to swallow enough sh-garbage-
Crowd: You can say Shit.
Crowd: We' re X-rated.
Me, too, if you believe the papers.
Here's the truth.
No politician can re-open this factory or bring back the shipyard jobs. . .
or make your union strong again.
No politician can make it the way it was.
Because we now live in a world without economic borders.
Push a button in New York and a billion dollars moves to Tokyo.
In that world, muscle jobs go where muscle labor is cheep,
and that is not here.
So to compete, you have to exercise a different muscle
the one between your ears."
On Trump: are you saying people's falling IQs are the reason why Trump got elected? I think there are lots of economic, political and social factors that ultimately contributed to Trump getting elected.
On the Flynn Effect: I think the trouble is far too many people want to just sit and watch reality tv as opposed learning about the world. I'm a believer that you should never stop learning, but I think many people just shut their brains off as soon as they leave school or uni. I think with smart women, many opt for careers where they have to work long hours, which makes having kids very difficult.
#OTD 1982 F1 drivers take strike action. While Niki Lauda et al escape the race via bus, a partially dressed James Hunt gave his view https://t.co/4a9LcaQCKe
Go to 4 mins. on this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088jnh7/the-one-show-19012017
Rob Edwards is a very reputable journalist.
The other people interviewed seem to have found Trump to be a 'neighbour from hell'.
No, I cannot see this being successfully enough suppressed for four years for him to win again, although I probably wouldn't bet on him stepping down and the odds on 2010 may not be juicy enough to tie up money for 4 yrs.
On your last point: I'm with you there. Did you hear about the WH removing its page on LGBT rights after Trump's inauguration?
Firstly, the EU - or whatever it has morphed into - will look more obviously "foreign" in 20-30 years' time. They might look broadly look like us demographically, but they don't sound like us or seem to think quite like us - there's a distinct worldview, perhaps one that seems further apart from ours than it really is partly because we have enough in common to spot the fairly minor differences. They are not us and we are not them.
I think if the EU is to be successful it will have to become more federal and state-like. I can't see how the economics works out any other way. That would make joining the EU have a distinctly harder and more transformative edge - not just a fluffy internationally-cooperative free trade area, but the rejection of the idea of Britain as a nation-state in its own right. A particularly unattractive option if eurofederalism gets eurofudged in a way that gives the EU many state-like characteristics, but still allows bigger, richer nations to dominate decision-making and wield this to hammer, rather than support, states like Greece. That doesn't strike me as an unlikely course of events. Lots of folk, especially young ones, seem to hold to the line that "Brexit will make Britain weaker and poorer, while freeing Europe to reshape its future in a way that makes it richer and strong - therefore Britain will eventually rejoin Europe". Even if their premise is right (I'm not 100% convinced, but I'll run with it) the conclusion relies on the average British voter finding the manner Europe treats its weaker, poorer members an attractive one. If this means bullying, being stripped of control, and getting the full-on "Greek treatment", then I'm not sure it will be such a vote-winner.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/index.html
In addition, four Presidents have died of natural causes while in office.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_in_office
So, of the 58 presidential elections, 9 have not completed their four year term of office. 15%
I also think the EU is likely to become uglier as it gets stronger and faces tough choices about the exertion of hard and soft power - c.f. British perceptions of "the Land of the Free" circa 1925 - circa 1975. Its expansion into, and attempts to digest, the Balkans bring serious risks. Aside from poverty and corruption (not just Albania, it's an issue across much of the region), there are political flashpoints in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. It's in the nature of that region that there are going to be crisis conferences, but the first "hot" internal or near-external deployment of EU armed forces is a serious possibility.
The EU is one of the biggest players, perhaps the biggest, in the Western Med, which could draw it into all manner of issues (continuation of the migrant crisis, instability in Libya and perhaps Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco in future). Its expansion also sets the EU on course to partake in Great Power games with Russia in the Baltic and eastern Europe (particularly Ukraine, but also Moldova and Belarus when political transition occurs there), and with Russia, Turkey and ultimately perhaps Iran in the the Middle East (various), Eastern Med (Cyprus?) and Caucasus (Georgia, perhaps Armenia).
In terms of Britain ever wanting to rejoin, it seems the best hope of that would be for the EU to become not just richer, but more flexible and focused on trade, leaving members essentially free to choose their own socioeconomic objectives and methods. That seems to be the very opposite of the direction of travel. Federalism may give the EU a bigger role in world affairs - I note that the europhiles invariably say bigger "voice", but voice comes from power and with power come obligations, choices and a degree of realpolitikal ugliness. To what extent is Europe ready for this? And to what extent would this be attractive to a British voter?
A particular paradox is that this incremental power would be coming over a period when Europe declines as a proportion of global population, and more rapidly still, declines as a share of the global economy. If anything that's a driver of integration - the rationale in Brussels is that the only way to stand up with (or to) India or China or the USA is to stand together. But coupled with Britain's trade patterns entering a long-term trend where the Rest of the World is increasingly important and European trade might bottom out at 25-35% of the total, the EU's relative economic and demographic decline makes remarriage on their terms less tempting. If reentry brought us under the aegis of the world's most economically, politically and militarily powerful union, there'd be bigger gains to balance against freedoms and flexibilities lost. Yet that didn't persuade us to sign up to the 51st state solution in the post-Suez era when similar considerations were in play. Would we accept a lower prize?
Fascinating chart from @SeanTrende and @davidbylerRCP showing how the Democratic party went from national to urban. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html …
Indeed as I commented earlier it is not beyond reality that EU companies may want to set up in the UK to benefit from a US trade deal.
Interesting that Trump has already re-instated Churchill's bust in the oval office
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary "13th"? Well worth a look, if not exactly holding back on where its sympathies lie. It contains the astonishing fact that there are currently more black men in the US penal system than there were slaves in the US at the height of slavery. So much for the 13th Amendment...
And that conviction excludes them from many things, including the democratic process. Those who think our prisoners have it tough not being able to vote whilst in jail should look at how it works in the US.
What's also barely mentioned in these cases is the amount of medical intervention required to achieve the result. A woman in her fifties doesn't often just become pregnant in the usual way.
Under this Govt, it gets eaten. By people in need. Not pigs.
Now, please, just STFU with your ill-informed political point-scoring about food banks, as you tuck into your fine Italian dining. Better still, come back and help distribute it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_East_Asia
All done with massive financial backing from westerners and/or by adopting western-style economic and fiscal policies. That is, by copying and relying on people with lower IQs on average. In any case, that was not my point. The societies themselves are not ones I would care to live in: very high pressure, very homogenous, very conformist.
I think they might be more concerned about wrongly imprisoned!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relatedness
My father was born in 1886.
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
It's a paper written by some of the most respected climate scientists in the world and published by the Royal Society in 2013. Its conclusion:
"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change."
This is very much the mainstream view, and it is well supported by calculation, modelling and palaeoclimatic evidence. Yes, there's no guarantee that this will happen, but, according to our best predictions, it is the most likely scenario. You'd have to be insane to simply ignore the possibility.
On a less contentious note, this piece on the decline of traditional statistics and polling is interesting regardless of our political persuasion:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Long+reads+base&utm_term=209528&subid=6274295&CMP=ema-1133
I have seen figures bandied around to the effect that an expenditure of $50tn globally would perhaps reduce the change in sea level by around 5mm over the next century. The question the voters will want answered is how much of a real risk is an extra 5mm rise compared to what we could do with our share of $50tn.
https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/822751700977127424
» show previous quotes
That has been the consensus since before I did my Psychology degree almost 30 years ago. The interesting bit is twin studies and the correlation of IQ with between fraternal/identical twins, and twins that grew up together and those where one was adopted out at a young age.
Identical twins—Reared together .86
Identical twins—Reared apart .76
Fraternal twins—Reared together .55
Fraternal twins—Reared apart .35
Source?
Wealth of literature particularly out of Scandanavia given the quality of their twin registers.
In my field of mental illness,twin studies provide valuable information on the influence of genetics/environment on development of serious mental disorders.
BTW, 13th is on Netflix if anyone wants to check it out.
As an aside, climate scientists in general suffer from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRDA_(slang) problem, considering where their current and future funding comes from.
I find it astonishing that Jay and Lynn in writing their programmes were so close to the realities of government. It is even more astonishing that the same sort of tensions and events are still being played out in the same way 30 years later.
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
The authors' closing comment:
"It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity."
I'd live in Capri for half the year, mind. That is heaven on earth for me.
Perhaps you should explain to the Australians that being 'overrun with Brits' will allow them to retire earlier.
All that the Democrats have gained in return is Virginia.
https://twitter.com/agappleton/status/822796805490569216
UK 660
NZ 41
Can 9
Aus 9
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
Yet Southam supports unlimited free movement to Britain but thinks Aus, Can and NZ would be 'overrun with Brits'.
And isn't 'overrun' an interesting word.
I wonder what middle class lefties would have accused anyone in Britain of being if they had said their communities were being 'overrun' with immigrants.
I thought of that Yes, Prime Minister episode as well.
This story does suggest that the Foreign Office will often pursue what it believes is its own interests rather than actual government policy.
Which is, of course, the underlying story of YM and YPM.
#OTD 1982 F1 drivers take strike action. While Niki Lauda et al escape the race via bus, a partially dressed James Hunt gave his view https://t.co/4a9LcaQCKe How fascinating - can you elaborate? I'm a big believer in environment determining behaviour/IQ.
http://tinyurl.com/ju8c6a2
Meanwhile, Hacker meets with the Foreign Secretary, who also knows nothing of St. George's Island. Perplexed, the PM orders him to start asking questions. He also expresses his wish that the FO abstain from voting on an upcoming United Nations motion condemning the State of Israel. He argues that the Palestinians are just as much at fault and that Britain should steer a neutral course. The Foreign Secretary advises against this, as "the Foreign Office wouldn’t wear it."
wv 17.93
tenn 11.15 (loss of Gore factor)
arka 10.75
miss 7.85
kent 7.36
ri 7.36
okla 7.26
alab 6.72
loui 5.99
iow 4.91
nd 4.07
sd 3.53
wyo 3.12
mich 2.68
conn 2.67
penn 2.65
ohio 2.52
ny 1.97
indi 1.81
nj 1.55
main 1.22
miss 0.83
dela 0.81
flor 0.69
wisc 0.58
min 0.44
kans 0.15
mass 0
nh -0.82
sc -0.84
nebr -1.32
ariz -1.36
illi -1.99
mon -2.27
neva -2.98
geor -3.27
idah -3.84
nm -4.08
mary -4.16
nc -4.55
oreg -5.28
wash -5.35
texa -6.11 (loss of Bush factor)
colo -6.62
hawa -6.64
virg -6.68
alas -7.89
verm -8.02
cali -8.75
utah -10.75 (Ind factor)
Swings to the Republicans in Appalachia and along the Mississippi
Swings to the Democrats along both coasts
Its really not dissimilar to that seen in UK - swings to Labour in the cities and away from Labour in rural and industrial areas.
It's a talent that jumps all boundaries - Hillary was a cold fish machine.
One of the things that went pretty much unmentioned yesterday, although it was in Trump's speech, was the way in which power was handed over. Obama and Trump have clearly hated each other for nearly a decade, yet everything was handed over peacefully.
Obama said he was struck by how GW Bush had done the same for him in 2008, so after another nasty campaign they put their differences aside in the National interest of a smooth handover. It's to the immense credit of both men involved yesterday that they see their role as temporary custodians of the highest office.
Our diplomatic interests are mostly aligned with the US; we have some soft power that is still useful. Our utility to the Yanks is like that of Israel; a stick to beat others with
(or looks like)
https://xkcd.com/966/
In 1860 there were 31.4mn people in the USA.
In 2016 there are 324.1mn people in the USA.
The US population has increased more than ten-fold.
In a sense it doesn't matter...most renewable energies are neutral, or at least more desirable than burning stuff (except of course destroying rain forest and replacing with plant oils). So Govt should encourage one and discourage the other.
The problem is that you have loony right wing nut jobs who just hate the govt interfering at all; they are so blinded by ideology, and they are desperate to believe that AGW is some lefty, liberal con.
The Alt Right in the USA and here hate liberals more than their real enemies. A crusade against AGW represents an ideological battle against lefties...but the Russians invading Ukraine, and threatening Europe...well that's not a problem...
That was my point earlier with all the pbERS loving to wind liberals up...they would much rather see liberals squirm than anything else (i.e. terrible policy). Repealing Obamacare with no alternative is another example.
Are renewable energies neutral?
Every puff of wind you extract from the airflow to turn into power changes the eco system. The power will do work and create heat to be dissipated into the atmosphere. The wind is stolen from the sea or land and less moisture evaporates so there is less natural cooling and a change to cloud formation. There is no such thing as free energy, and use of wind has the potential to change climate in a significant way. Every joule of solar power you extract well produce work and heat for mankind. Also the amount of natural heat from the sun that is radiated back into space will diminish. It isn't free. Capture and use of all energy sources have the potential to alter climate, even the bizarrely named green energies.
What is this march supposed to achieve in any case except signal virtue, probably no one on it can vote against him, almost no one watching can vote against him, and pretty much no one watching it on TV can vote against him - and even those that can, now can't for four years!
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/822786421421473793