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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (45835)	12/16/2005 2:34:14 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Your grandiose assessment of your understanding of economics can only be fueled by drugs and alcohol. There is little in the real world to support your inflated self-opinion -- particularly since you have not bothered to obtain more than a rudimentary education. .

To: GraceZ who wrote (45835)	12/16/2005 6:02:15 PM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I've had excellent teachers on the subject of economics and as opposed to other areas of study, economics is complete. Where were your teachers based and what "school" of economics did they learn from - chicago monetary types or austrian mises types or french henry georgist types? valdosta.edu He was one of the few I took - his english was broken - but he was a better teacher than most at that university - he had real world experience - unlike the others in that dept believing theory - some of my other professors there seems to have moved on - I guess to greener pastures. The best there was an EX general motors executive that had opened up plants in asia, south america, mexico for GM - he had a ton of real world experience - but he clashed with the theory loving economists in that dept and didnt last long - after going to ga tech the difference in professors was quite stark - but I didnt take many econ/business type classes when I got there.

To: GraceZ who wrote (45835)	12/17/2005 12:43:22 AM
From: Live2Sail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Grace, I didn't say. I made no comments about what Flynn said or didn't say except the 15 extra IQ points needed by a white to do as well as an Asian in math. But you said this: I can't give you a reason because no researcher would be caught dead researching this in the current social environment where everyone is suppose to be born equal.... contrary to all evidence. Either there is a cultural bias towards taking math much more seriously in families of Asian decent or there is a inherited advantage. It's not PC to point out that certain abilities can be inherited, but clearly there are many abilities which tend to be passed on genetically. From the above, I was led to believe that Flynn didn't give a reason or that maybe he implied a genetic difference in his book. Anyway, I could certainly believe that Asian-Americans have a cultural bias towards math. Couple more questions: to what level of significance (alpha) is this statistic true? Why the difference between the Chinese and Japanese? Does he measure Asian men vs. Asian women? You mention opportunity -- in his comparison, did he control for household income, parental education, and whether or not a parent is at home? I have a hard time believing that U.S. students are regressing. More students today are taking more AP classes in more subject areas than ever before. L2S