Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Thunder Dome -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (218)	6/3/2002 3:50:45 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 335

I find it remarkable that so called "respected" scientists and statisticians are still debating over the relevance of the "Gene factor" with respect to IQ in Black vs White populations. Did these guys formally work for tobacco companies "proving" that smoking was actually good for your health?? It's my contention (to anyone who still believes in the "Gene Factor" of IQ) that in reality the "Gene" factor will be found to be composed of several sub factors which are nothing to do with "Genes". The so called "Gene factor" is 15 IQ points in average difference. OK, in the message you have replied too, the link shows changes in IQ of 25% to 30% when humans are treated differently. The suggestion being that high IQ attainment is a complex interaction between human beings as well as a random phenomenon occurring near birth and early childhood. It's only in the USA that the "Gene factor" has been found to be relevant. I think some liberal left wing UK political viewpoint is suitable at this juncture. One need not go any further then, of course, the Guardian... guardian.co.uk A trade-off indeed. For if success is genetic, then why not failure too? "White men can't jump" is only a hop and a skip away from "Black men can't think, read, write or behave". In this field Entine is not a daring pioneer but the butt-end of a lineage stretching back centuries. In 1884 the Encyclopedia Britannica stated: "No full-blooded negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet or an artist, and the fundamental equality claimed for him by ignorant philanthropists is belied by the whole history of the race throughout the historic period." another fact... skepdic.com "There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white" (Blum). Do I rest my case here, or do I need to continue my argument??