Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 109 of 109

Thread: IQ

  1. #101
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    16,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Heart View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Except these other factors that may cause a higher iq are also linked with economic success meaning there's no evidence that iq is the cause of this success... seriously, look up what a confounding variable is. Honestly, it's like the stuff you type isn't even worth responding to because you can't get very basic concepts.

    It's not even worth getting into an actual debate about this when you can't even understand this point, but I'll explain to you why some countries are better of than others despite that you probably can't follow it.

    To be general it's a mix of circumstance and environmental causes, what really allowed the west to become dominant however was the renaissance, that was the great turning point. Before that china and the middle east was far more developed. So what caused the renaissance? Well one could write essays about that, but to be brief it was trade with the eastern world, constant warfare, and the black plague even. These things allowed for European society to flourish and advance, not get a higher iq or intelligence(it's not like they even defined intelligence the same way as we do anyway), but more advanced. The warfare pushed forward the development of technology, trade reintroduced the greek and roman wisdom to western society, and the black plague indiscriminately killed, which broke down existing structures and markets and allowed for both guilds and merchants to gain a higher place in society. This led to the renaissance which was a kick off point of sorts for western society. One, all of this stuff I'm saying makes sense and is supported by evidence, it's historically true, and 2) it's a bit ridiculous to just say that around 1400-1600s there was some shift in the genome that came out of no where and made europeans a lot smarter which caused them to develop faster than other parts of the world.

    You're the one who never see's reality for what it is, truth is natural for me, but for you it takes a lot of effort to discover... and that's ok, Kong
    I warned you about that Saul Alinsky stuff, Allara. Don’t kept changing the terms. Anyone reading this thread can see clearly that I’ve defined high IQ as being a catalyst for economic and social prosperity. You know, the things the West excels at. Trying to bastardize it as “dominance” is mischaracterizing my argument. The Umayyad Caliphate was “dominant.” That didn’t mean anyone wanted to live there. But EVERYONE wants to live in the glorious West.

    Funny you say I don’t grasp simple concepts. What you mean to say is that you’ve put forth no concepts to grasp, just your watered down postmodern narrative.

    The problem with your argument is it hinges on the idea that Europe wasn’t trailblazing before the early modern period, or exerting influence on other cultures. So you’ll have to explain this:



    You’ll also have to explain away the creation and implementation of the first democracies and republics by Greeks and Romans. Even Arabs who later discovered Ancient Greek texts benefitted immensely, and they weren’t even in direct contact!

    “B-but the Ancient Egyptians!”

    You mean the people who were indistinguishable from Mediterranean Europeans?



    Europe really does have the Midas touch.



    Let’s face it, Allara. You’re out of your depth here. You can’t even hold a candle to the European philosophers you’re living in the shadow of.

    Last edited by Crispinianus; 01-15-2018 at 03:36 PM.

  2. #102
    Knight of Elegance Aliasniamor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    5,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Zu View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Interesting.

    And nani!? I don't even comprehend the meaning of that

    Is your boob knowledge that tremendously far above mine?
    Yes. It's over 9000

  3. #103
    Knight of Romance Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    13,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    the authors of that paper think otherwise, I defer to their expertise on the matter

    You're down the river without a paddle, this is what happens when you try your gay ass way of debating, I got something solid and you got nothing
    uh, they themselves said even with all the decades of research no more than a correlation has ever been observed.

    I mean in your defense, or rather what I've been saying this whole time, the very nature of the claim makes it really hard to prove scientifically because of all the variables involved that you would need to account for.

  4. #104
    Knight of Romance Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    13,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I warned you about that Saul Alinsky stuff, Allara. Don’t kept changing the terms. Anyone reading this thread can see clearly that I’ve defined high IQ as being a catalyst for economic and social prosperity. You know, the things the West excels at. Trying to bastardize it as “dominance” is mischaracterizing my argument. The Umayyad Caliphate was “dominant.” That didn’t mean anyone wanted to live there. But EVERYONE wants to live in the glorious West.

    Funny you say I don’t grasp simple concepts. What you mean to say is that you’ve put forth no concepts to grasp, just your watered down postmodern narrative.

    The problem with your argument is it hinges on the idea that Europe wasn’t trailblazing before the early modern period, or exerting influence on other cultures. So you’ll have to explain this:



    You’ll also have to explain away the creation and implementation of the first democracies and republics by Greeks and Romans. Even Arabs who later discovered Ancient Greek texts benefitted immensely, and they weren’t even in direct contact!

    “B-but the Ancient Egyptians!”

    You mean the people who were indistinguishable from Mediterranean Europeans?



    Europe really does have the Midas touch.



    Let’s face it, Allara. You’re out of your depth here. You can’t even hold a candle to the European philosophers you’re living in the shadow of.

    I don't even know who that guy is, unlike you I can actually arrive to conclusions and refute conclusions without puppetting the ideas of whatever intellectual I decide to fancy when I'm on my period. You find some new position to hold every weekend without ever understanding any of them.

    You can't define high iq as the catalyst for economic prosperity and social growth, that's a claim, you can't define your claim as true. You are claiming that, and without any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. Where is your proof that it's not social growth and economic prosperity that causes a higher iq instead of a high iq causing social growth and prosperity? Or that some other factor does not cause both a higher iq and economic prosperity? Do you know how cause and effect works? Showing that two things are found in the same place is never enough to say that one thing causes the other, you need to have evidence to show there's not confounding variables, evidence to show it's not the opposite cause and effect relationship. What have you shown though? Silly maps that are based upon studies you haven't even examined that at best show a correlation, but in no way show a cause and effect relationship. Now that's fine and dandy, but than you go on to apply a modern standard that is already arbitrary even within the context of our society to societies hundreds, and now with this current post, thousands of years ago and say that this recently created standard is what caused these societies to thrive. To top it off, you even define how these societies thrived based upon the modernized conception of what is correct, and what success is. For example, calling a classical democracy/republic a sign of progress, this is nothing more than applying modern political opinions to a time that held nothing of the sort and existed within an entirely different context.

    The worst part about this is that you ignore historical development entirely and simply argue that western Europeans are really smart(according to a definition of smart that didn't even exist in these time periods.), and attempt to support this with some random article about the dna of some pharoah as if you're refuting something when I never even mentioned egypt. The funny thing about this is that in doing this you refute your own claims. If you're saying that the middle east, northern africa, and europe all are western european(a very contradictory thing to say by itself lol), and that genetics=iq=success, than why is it that currently all 3 of these parts of the world have economic and social standards that are drastically different from eachother? Your argument disproves itself. And if you're not claiming that western blood flows through these areas, you'll have to explain their pre-rennaissance historical success. Because the living standards were higher in the middle east and china than in europe by far even though you make the faulty claim that no one would want to live there. Educational standards, intellectual progress, economic prosperity, all of these were higher in the middle ages in both the middle east and china. And civillization was born out of northern africa and the middle east. So either you're making a self contradicting claim, or a claim contradicted by reality, you choose.

    Going back to your arguments about the ancient era, (and btw, the prediction of what iq a person from those times would have would make them all idiots, just another thing making your argument flawed) it's not like greek/rome were the only dominant civilizations. Civilization flourished during this time in Asia, the middle east,and Europe. its like you're switching arguments, you go from saying western europe is now dominant because they historically had high iqs and I disprove that and show what actually allowed Europe to flourish, you than switch to throwing out irrelevant evidence of western europeans in egypt... which proves all of nothing in this debate. All the while contradicting your original stance by showing that even a country like Egypt that had western european heritage isn't well off right now. If western european blood flows through the middle east, and north africa, than tell me, does there current lack of development and stabillity not prove that it wasn't the high iq of western europeans that led to success?

    What, do you want me to explain to you, detail by detail the circumstances of why every society that flourished flourished, or can you finally see the general principle behind it? In every single case it's due to a multitude of circumstantial reasons. Why did European society fall and dip after the greeks and romans? Did they become genetically inferior and lose iq points all of a sudden? That's what you're saying by claiming iq is what does and has always determined the success of society.

    Also, i just want to point out, you've entirely abandoned your original claims about iq causing the modern west to flourish because we both know the renaissance is the turning point that led to that, and you have not even attempted to respond to my explanation behind its existence, when it's necessary to prove a high iq caused it for your argument to make even a lick of sense. Why I even continue to debate you is beyond me because it's like you're not even able to follow the course of the discussion.

    Edit:

    just noticed you called dominance a bastardization of social and economic prosperity. I thought it common sense I was defining dominance as economic and social prosperity.
    Last edited by Heart; 01-15-2018 at 04:54 PM.

  5. #105
    Hold for applause (◡‿◡✿) Nikamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Bar Eden Hall
    Posts
    3,825
    Nika proves that online IQ test are bullshit:


    I think they generate high scores to flatter people. ._.

    As for the topic on hand, saying that IQ is linked to progress in life and linking IQ with first world countries as proof of that, is a dangerous theory that brushes the edge of racism. It also does not account for the socio economic factors such as disease, war, famine, and centuries of oppression that have kept these areas of the globe impoverished.

    Nika's Fairy Tail Reading Log - click here!
    ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ The real world is for those who can't imagine anything better.

  6. #106
    Crispinianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    16,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Heart View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't even know who that guy is, unlike you I can actually arrive to conclusions and refute conclusions without puppetting the ideas of whatever intellectual I decide to fancy when I'm on my period. You find some new position to hold every weekend without ever understanding any of them.

    You can't define high iq as the catalyst for economic prosperity and social growth, that's a claim, you can't define your claim as true. You are claiming that, and without any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. Where is your proof that it's not social growth and economic prosperity that causes a higher iq instead of a high iq causing social growth and prosperity? Or that some other factor does not cause both a higher iq and economic prosperity? Do you know how cause and effect works? Showing that two things are found in the same place is never enough to say that one thing causes the other, you need to have evidence to show there's not confounding variables, evidence to show it's not the opposite cause and effect relationship. What have you shown though? Silly maps that are based upon studies you haven't even examined that at best show a correlation, but in no way show a cause and effect relationship. Now that's fine and dandy, but than you go on to apply a modern standard that is already arbitrary even within the context of our society to societies hundreds, and now with this current post, thousands of years ago and say that this recently created standard is what caused these societies to thrive. To top it off, you even define how these societies thrived based upon the modernized conception of what is correct, and what success is. For example, calling a classical democracy/republic a sign of progress, this is nothing more than applying modern political opinions to a time that held nothing of the sort and existed within an entirely different context.

    The worst part about this is that you ignore historical development entirely and simply argue that western Europeans are really smart(according to a definition of smart that didn't even exist in these time periods.), and attempt to support this with some random article about the dna of some pharoah as if you're refuting something when I never even mentioned egypt. The funny thing about this is that in doing this you refute your own claims. If you're saying that the middle east, northern africa, and europe all are western european(a very contradictory thing to say by itself lol), and that genetics=iq=success, than why is it that currently all 3 of these parts of the world have economic and social standards that are drastically different from eachother? Your argument disproves itself. And if you're not claiming that western blood flows through these areas, you'll have to explain their pre-rennaissance historical success. Because the living standards were higher in the middle east and china than in europe by far even though you make the faulty claim that no one would want to live there. Educational standards, intellectual progress, economic prosperity, all of these were higher in the middle ages in both the middle east and china. And civillization was born out of northern africa and the middle east. So either you're making a self contradicting claim, or a claim contradicted by reality, you choose.

    Going back to your arguments about the ancient era, (and btw, the prediction of what iq a person from those times would have would make them all idiots, just another thing making your argument flawed) it's not like greek/rome were the only dominant civilizations. Civilization flourished during this time in Asia, the middle east,and Europe. its like you're switching arguments, you go from saying western europe is now dominant because they historically had high iqs and I disprove that and show what actually allowed Europe to flourish, you than switch to throwing out irrelevant evidence of western europeans in egypt... which proves all of nothing in this debate. All the while contradicting your original stance by showing that even a country like Egypt that had western european heritage isn't well off right now. If western european blood flows through the middle east, and north africa, than tell me, does there current lack of development and stabillity not prove that it wasn't the high iq of western europeans that led to success?

    What, do you want me to explain to you, detail by detail the circumstances of why every society that flourished flourished, or can you finally see the general principle behind it? In every single case it's due to a multitude of circumstantial reasons. Why did European society fall and dip after the greeks and romans? Did they become genetically inferior and lose iq points all of a sudden? That's what you're saying by claiming iq is what does and has always determined the success of society.

    Also, i just want to point out, you've entirely abandoned your original claims about iq causing the modern west to flourish because we both know the renaissance is the turning point that led to that, and you have not even attempted to respond to my explanation behind its existence, when it's necessary to prove a high iq caused it for your argument to make even a lick of sense. Why I even continue to debate you is beyond me because it's like you're not even able to follow the course of the discussion.

    Edit:

    just noticed you called dominance a bastardization of social and economic prosperity. I thought it common sense I was defining dominance as economic and social prosperity.
    No, seriously, you must be a big fan of Saul Alinsky. You use all his debating tactics. You’ve strayed so far from the original premise of this thread that it’s laughable.



    You can pound away at your keyboard all you want. You’ll never change the reality of things. High IQ groups create the most prosperous civilizations, and IQ is genetics. It’s simply the truth.



    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikamara View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nika proves that online IQ test are bullshit:


    I think they generate high scores to flatter people. ._.

    As for the topic on hand, saying that IQ is linked to progress in life and linking IQ with first world countries as proof of that, is a dangerous theory that brushes the edge of racism. It also does not account for the socio economic factors such as disease, war, famine, and centuries of oppression that have kept these areas of the globe impoverished.
    But it’s the truth. Is it more racist to ignore racial differences or acknowledge them?

  7. #107
    Hold for applause (◡‿◡✿) Nikamara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Bar Eden Hall
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispinianus View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No, seriously, you must be a big fan of Saul Alinsky. You use all his debating tactics. You’ve strayed so far from the original premise of this thread that it’s laughable.



    You can pound away at your keyboard all you want. You’ll never change the reality of things. High IQ groups create the most prosperous civilizations, and IQ is genetics. It’s simply the truth.



    - - - Updated - - -



    But it’s the truth. Is it more racist to ignore racial differences or acknowledge them?
    This is not about ignoring racial differences. It's about how you linked one thing - intelligence - to race and then saying that's why they are poor in a nutshell. Which completely ignores every other factor for why those people are impoverished. That's abominably offensive.

    furthermore as concerns tutankhamun, you'd be surprised how many races are caucasian ._. from east indians to aborigines!

    Nika's Fairy Tail Reading Log - click here!
    ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ The real world is for those who can't imagine anything better.

  8. #108
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    61,186
    how come nobody wants to discuss the studies?
    @Crispickle;

  9. #109
    PUNISHED T.O.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chiraq
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by VICE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I estimate my IQ is between 67 and 197 range. If I'm being modest.
    If you are an adult in the range of 60-70 iq that would mean you have the intelligence of a third grader.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •