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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (480731)

10/4/2021 9:33:36 PM

From: koan

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Maple MAGA

Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 540821

The central idea of Flynn holds, we got demonstrably smarter in the last hundred years due to more education.

That should not be even up for debate. Just look at the gains we made in general awareness about things like racism, sexism, homophobia and wars, and humanity alone, so that comports with Flynn's thesis.

As far as Afghanistan goes, if we had kept 2,500 troops in Afghanistan the generals felt we could have kept the Taliban in check. And they told Biden that!!!

And we would still have systems in place to both protect us from terrorists and prevent one million children from starving to death, and the terrorizing of millions of people, mostly women.

So yes, it is my OPINION that should be a simple humanitarian equation.

Tell me how you would solve this equation!!??:

The UN predicts a million children will starve this winter. .

2,500 troops might have been able to prevent that.

I stand by my opinion from a humanitarian point of view!

<<Message #480731 from cosmicforce at 10/4/2021 3:46:25 PM

Using more "IMO" is a great place to start to help people separate your passion from independently reviewable facts. You can certainly have opinions. Perhaps it is just your enthusiasm - but when subjects (like Afghanistan) come up - the opinions get confounded with emotions in most people and they become resolute on a number of things - morality, propriety, etc. We have to approach subjects with emotional content differently - I made my "logical case for abortion" with the 4th Amendment and property rights analogs for guests vs. paying tenants with agency. I don't expect anyone who feels strongly the other way to be swayed.

There are increases in IQ that may have the same root causes as increased body height (nutritional availability) - so if I feed humanity better they could very well get smarter. But there is also the possibility of the "answers" being leaked into the society so that "novel problems" are no longer novel as some people are taught them in other venues or practice that type of problem more.

And women test better than men but there are still skills, where normalization is performed, where men (or women) test better. All true - however I'm not sure how we use this information to form policy (or if we should). IMO.

<,

Using more "IMO" is a great place to start to help people separate your passion from independently reviewable facts. You can certainly have opinions. Perhaps it is just your enthusiasm - but when subjects (like Afghanistan) come up - the opinions get confounded with emotions in most people and they become resolute on a number of things - morality, propriety, etc. We have to approach subjects with emotional content differently - I made my "logical case for abortion" with the 4th Amendment and property rights analogs for guests vs. paying tenants with agency. I don't expect anyone who feels strongly the other way to be swayed.

There are increases in IQ that may have the same root causes as increased body height (nutritional availability) - so if I feed humanity better they could very well get smarter. But there is also the possibility of the "answers" being leaked into the society so that "novel problems" are no longer novel as some people are taught them in other venues or practice that type of problem more.

And women test better than men but there are still skills, where normalization is performed, where men (or women) test better. All true - however I'm not sure how we use this information to form policy (or if we should). IMO.