User login
Poll
What do you expect to cause your death?
A disease that's currently known to medical science.
38%
A disease that NOT currently known to medical science.
15%
Some form of violence.
8%
Old age.
15%
Other (discuss!)
23%
Total votes: 13
Latest image
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.
Who's new
- dimida
- dad43ns
- blackrains6
- jjrb04
- Joshua2
Syndicate
Comments
You publish
your results and expose them to peer review. If you did good science, you'll be fine. If you did bad, you'll be roasted.
Unless, of course, you get sued for plagiarism.
---
Have faith, Mohamed Atta did!
They would have to first
They would have to first define "intelligence," which has yet to happen in a way that satisfies everyone.
As a rule, I don't think scientific information should be kept from people. On the other hand, if you tell a group of people that their inferiority is out of their hands, crazy things happen.
~~~~~
"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has it's limits" ~A.E.
Fair enough, I was
Fair enough, I was envisioning a "naturally higher IQ" situation. But yeah you're right there are different types of course. And yeah I think it'd definitely stir up some shit if it was like on the cover of Time and on CNN and shit. Huuuuge shit.
Beyond that, though (and
Beyond that, though (and besides Hitler), imagine a world where there was a minority group that was "allowed" to be stupid because it's "in their genes." Psychologically, why would you even try to be "smart?" Especially when you could sit around collecting government money that will inevitably be handed to you because now you're "disabled." whee!
~~~~~
"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has it's limits" ~A.E.
Right, yeah, that's why I
Right, yeah, that's why I asked for opinions. ;)
urh...
Historically, lots of things like that have been published. It's just that sooner or later, someone usually makes the perpetrator eat it.
-------
The only difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is none.
I suppose I meant like, if
I suppose I meant like, if it was verifiable and you know, correct-like. ;) Which, to my knowledge, has never happened.
It always depends who you
It always depends who you ask. If you ask as a neo-Nazi, you know they can "prove" who is superior. And they've had a few scientists who'd be willing to massage it into looking like real science.
-------
The only difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is none.
massage it So you don't
massage it
So you don't think different races are differently attributed mentally? 'Cuz me, I can't imagine that they aren't, not that I have any idea which race is where on the lists. Still you have differences in genes, susceptibilities to diseases, even athletics (I imagine). I think it's just a matter of (probably not much) time before someone, somewhere irrefutably ranks them.
There is also the issue of
There is also the issue of how race is defined, and for some reason you brought majority and minority into it. Let's suppose the majority RACE is smarter, so that puts Asian styles in first place, followed by, oh, the Arab world. Then I think, all-other-black-skinned people. White people, followed by aboriginals, assorted?
Do you begin to see why this research would not get funded in the first damn place?
-------
The only difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is none.
Well I went with majority
Well I went with majority vs. minority because I imagine that was the worst case scenario for fireworks.
Vast swathes of scientists are spending all their time trying to define every single bit of our genome and won't stop until it's all mapped out. Once that information is out there, it'll be all of ten seconds before someone starts going through genetic maps of individuals and taking notes. It's inevitable. In my opinion. My strong opinion. ;)
Yeah, I can't really argue
Yeah, I can't really argue with that. I think it's fascinating that the UK is continually having public debates over which genetic assessments are a worthy way to spend public funding, tests for different types of cancer/risk, birth defects, etc. It seems like it really is only a matter of time before every person (in a developed nation...) is born with a chip detailing their likely medical future, and it will dictate things like what they can eat, or not, or drink, or medications they can or can't have or whatever.
Which is all very science fictiony and futurey. But then it's not so very far to think of people be assigned to their schooling that way, or their jobs, or whatever. And on one hand, it's great to think of it as a social equalizer--the FAS walking stillborn of the ultra rich will no longer be automatically in charge, because their assessments will indicate that, should they be asked to lead an expedition out of a wet paper bag, at least 6 strong men would perish. On the other hand, and this is the "selling point", those secret geniuses who languish in the world of the underprivileged would be plucked directly from the womb and nurtured in the most developmentally effective ways.
.... and the world will be a better place, right? ::cue sound of crickets::
-------
The only difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is none.
First, define a way to
First, define a way to measure intelligence that isn't culturally based.
ATGC
ATGC
Also: Smartass.
Also: Smartass.
My ass is only smart because
My ass is only smart because of my genes. OH and my birth order! ;)
Yeah, but how do you test
Yeah, but how do you test your subjects to find out that ATGC = IQ190 in the first place?
I'm pretty sure that if I
I'm pretty sure that if I could answer that, this question would be
mootanswered already and I'd be a famous scientist. But let me present my point of view. So for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm talking about high scores on IQ tests flavor of intelligence.Assertion (A) "Intelligence" is determined by genes, with perhaps some modifications made by certain environmental factors, but primarily smart genetics make smart people.
Assertion (B) Scientists will eventually define what genomes and phenomes determine level of intelligence. It may not be easy, but it's not like interest in the field of genetics is waning 'cuz it's hard.
I personally doubt it'll take long, maybe ten years? Even if it takes longer, it'll happen eventually. Genes DO STUFF, and every day we figure out more of that puzzle.
(A) will eventually mate with (B), producing a big fucking list of which races are smartest and which aren't. It'll probably be a goddamn minute difference and none of it will apply enough generations of intermingling later or after the robot uprising, but there it is.
The Arabs are clearly more
The Arabs are clearly more intelligent than Europeans, because they invented the zero.
I thought it was the Mayans.
I thought it was the Mayans. Inventing the zero.
-------
The only difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is none.
Huh, who knew?
Huh, who knew? Apparently the Arabs got zero from the Indians.
You should read: Zero: The
You should read: Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
~~~~~
"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has it's limits" ~A.E.
So?
Who invented it? Don't keep us in suspense!
-------
The only difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is none.
The Babylonian counting
The Babylonian counting style is where it first appeared (which is present day Iraq).
Because they had a sexagesimal system (based on 60), and their abacus used only two marks to represent their numbers (one wedge for for the number one and two wedges for the number 10). So if each 1 in the number 111 stand for a different value; from right to left, they stand for 1, 10, and 100.... because of this system, the number 60 looked identical to the number 1 when it was written. So, around 300BC, they started adding slanted wedges to represent an empty space. HOWEVER, this "zero" was only a placeholder, not a value.
The Mayans also used Zero in their calendar (month of Zip), starting with it instead of one. This gave it a place in the number line. But it was the Babylonians who later gave zero a value which was very much like our current system (multiplying any number by zero = zero). However the Egyptians/Greeks/ Romans (whom we get our modern calender from) hated the number Zero because it represented "nothingness," the "void" and "chaos."
Zero didn't become acceptable to the West for TWO MILLENNIA later. Because the Babylonians were so good at Astronomy, and the Greeks were obsessed with Astronomy, they had to adopt zero to make it work.
So that's the gist. The book is fascinating, and you should really check it out! :)
~~~~~
"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has it's limits" ~A.E.
Independently evolved
Independently evolved intelligence! We can use that to pinpoint Fury's ATGC.
Genes do stuff
They've already determined genetic factors for intelligence. You're not wrong, but I'm not sure it's going to come down to "race." If you think about each race, there are really smart and really dumb people in each category. It'll probably have more to do with being tall, or having lots of hair, or something.
*duck*
;-)
~~~~~
"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has it's limits" ~A.E.
For Science
Sure they should publish it. For science and stuff. They probably won't be the most popular of all doctors. Unless you count hate mail...
I'm not mean.....You're just a sissy.
The big question. I've
The big question. I've toyed with this one mentally for years, I guess I feel like stirring up some shit. ;)
OK, maybe not the big
OK, maybe not the big question. A big question (before someone points that out). ;) Maybe I'm the only one who expects this shit to seriously hit the fans...