Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

I want to know how Christians (or any other denomination for that matter), "trust" their beliefs. Especially since there are many more reasons to disbelieve, than to trust.

I said that if I could trust the source, I'd have to at least try and make an effort to understand. I'm being honest in saying that I'm probably incapable of coming to grips with how people lived to be 900 years old, or how someone can rise from the dead, and I know you hold that against me. Yet you somehow HAVE come to grips with believing in these very far-fetched stories. So I'm asking who you believe wrote them and where does your trust in these people come from? What makes you give these writings merit and credibility? I think that's an important question.

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

I thought we were talking about race and the brain?
Can we let a couple of threads go without the same religion argument?

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

Yeah, you're right. Sorry.

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

Based on Internet IQ tests, which I know aren't really reliable, however, compared to most IQ tests administered before 15-20 years ago they're probably more reliable, My IQ has varied from 160 to 138... that's 22 points, or varying by 11, nearly 1 standard deviation (which is 15 or 16 points depending).

BTW the case of natural selection is pretty minor. And the fact that IQs have been increasing at an average rate of 3 points per decade (the Flynn effect) shows pretty clearly that something other than race and natural selection is at play with IQ test scores.

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are very, very few great CEOs, lawyers, writers, artists, politicians, scientists, nobel prize winners (lol), journalists, etc etc who are from that race. That's all I'm saying. Though they have made a notable contribution to bling bling gansta rap (girls in skimpy clothing and shiny man-jewellery, anyone?). I guess that could be considered art.

[/ QUOTE ]
This guy is obviously a dumb, racist troll. I don't think anyone should waste their time trying to "debunk" him. Just ignore him.

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

So much to say, so little time.

Race matters.

If you're US educated and under 40 your view is polluted with PC garbage and you will unlikely be able to get past your indoctrination to examine the evidence objectively. If you're a Democrat/liberal you won't be able to address the issue honestly under any circumstances.

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

Yes, let's get back to what's really important: eugenics.

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

nelson mandela, malcom x, jhonny chochran

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

[ QUOTE ]
When phil153 was OOO with the umlats, I thought he had some good posts. I can’t figure out what happened when he devolved into phil153. Witness the following statements of his:

[ QUOTE ]
I question whether he (Jesus) ever existed. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Phil is a bit looney... but I agree with this quoted statement of his. I mean, I'm sure SOME guy named Jesus existed... and some of the details are probably accurate... but which ones, and how many... that's definitely questionable. And, in the end, if you don't know which details of the Biblical Jesus are true, it's hard to say that that Jesus actually existed.

PS: I really liked your first reply in this thread. I agree with most of it, too. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies
 

[ QUOTE ]
Based on Internet IQ tests, which I know aren't really reliable, however, compared to most IQ tests administered before 15-20 years ago they're probably more reliable, My IQ has varied from 160 to 138... that's 22 points, or varying by 11, nearly 1 standard deviation (which is 15 or 16 points depending).

BTW the case of natural selection is pretty minor. And the fact that IQs have been increasing at an average rate of 3 points per decade (the Flynn effect) shows pretty clearly that something other than race and natural selection is at play with IQ test scores.

[/ QUOTE ]

Internet IQ tests aren't a little bit unreliable, they're very unreliable.

But beyond that, with regards to the differences you mention in score. Different IQ test types yield different scores, their only commonality RE scoring is that the 50th percentile is set to 100.

Which is why it means next to nothing when someone says 'I have a 160 IQ', unless they tell you which test they used. If you look at Mensa membership criteria for example, the admittance level is a 138 on WAIS or a 150 on Cattell B, both well respected and widely used tests - those two scores are considered the SAME score. I approximated those numbers from memory, I can't be bothered to google it while multi-tabling lol, but they're roughly right. Point is only that there is no such thing as having an IQ of x unless a test is specified, so the deviation you mention doesn't mean anything unless you had a properly administered IQ test AND it was the same IQ test type each time. It's always surprised me that this nugget of info has managed to keep itself outside of popular knowledge, considering the amount of really smart people I know that tell me 'I have an IQ of 150'.


Edit:

Dug this up from the Mensa website. These are all well respected IQ tests and the scores below represent the top 2% of the population (so eligible for Mensa). So these scores are considered the 'same':

* Cattell III B - 148
* Culture Fair - 132
* Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135
* Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
* Wechsler Scales - 132