Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:37 PM
Lestat Lestat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 383
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:44 PM
Rduke55 Rduke55 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:54 PM
Lestat Lestat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 383
Default Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies

Yeah, you're right. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-20-2005, 07:23 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:44 PM
einbert einbert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in sklansky i trust
Posts: 2,190
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-20-2005, 11:17 PM
FlFishOn FlFishOn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 142
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-20-2005, 11:30 PM
atrifix atrifix is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Default Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies

Yes, let's get back to what's really important: eugenics.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-20-2005, 11:36 PM
hashi92 hashi92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6
Default Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies

nelson mandela, malcom x, jhonny chochran
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-21-2005, 12:00 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: This Ought To Get Some Replies

[ QUOTE ]
When phil153 was OOO with the umlats, I thought he had some good posts. I canít 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]
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-21-2005, 05:18 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.