Bungee Jumper

Ignore him. He cries over wrestlers.

So g is measured by performance on cognitive tests, and cognitive tests are designed to correlate highly with g. How in the name of all that's holy do you think that even begins to prove anything?

He can't define correlation, either, don't forget. Nor regression. Nor "mean". Nor expectation value. Really, he can't define much of anything. But at least he knows his quarterbacks. Oh, wait...

And he's STILL waiting for the study that shows that high IQ = productive member of society... You're not really saying that "g" and "IQ" are the same now, are you?

Somewhere in here there's a really cruel Joe Theisman glue joke...

But space-time doesn't exist. That would be four dimensions, not 3.5...

Of course, we're missing a very important point here: there are no East German scientists. If they're in eastern Germany, they're wrong, and they should thus regress towards Hannover or Kassel.

Well...a person with a high IQ will on average be a productive member of society. So anyone with a high IQ who isn't is just unlucky. If you measure their productivity again, that error will cause their productivity to regress toward the mean. This is proven because, according to Wikipedia, productivity is heritable in East German scientists. It's so simple, I don't know why you don't understand it by now.

If the correllation of adult IQs of unrelated people raised together is zero, and the post-adolescent heritability of IQ scores is around 80%...where's the other 20% go, poindexter? You're making a statement now that IQ is simultaneously 80% and 100% genetic. THIS is the difference between reading something and UNDERSTANDING it.

His posts do make me want to slit my wrists, though...

It certainly proves you have no idea what any of that definition means. Again: heritability and inheritability are two different things. You keep treating them as the same thing. You can link to as many different definitions as you want, and it still won't change the very simple fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And let's quote Plomin, shall we? Which pretty much proves that heritability and inheritability are two different things, you moron. You really ought to read the sources you link to.

Did you ask him how to pronounce his name?

HA simply doesn't understand how, where behavior (yes, HA, intelligence is a behavior) is concerned, genetics only establishes predisposition. Many, many environmental factors (cognitive, social, emotional, nutritional, for starters) can affect how a genetic predisposition expresses itself. But then, neither does he understand the relation between genetics and their expression as traits, seing as how he still continues to abuse the very concept of "heritability", and will continue to abuse it since he doesn't understand the underpinning concepts of "correlation", or "variance", or "mathematics"...really, he doesn't understand anything. I'd ignore him if it weren't so humorous. Like he's going to stop now...

Of course, suggesting that he inherited his stupidity from his mother in a thread where you're trying to prove you can't inherit intelligence is...well, disingenious.

You've got to appreciate the irony, though.

First off, I said "anthropocentric". Not "anthropomorphic". Big difference. Second, I never said science was anthropocentric nonsense. I said this was anthropocentric nonsense. And it is. You just demonstrated that again: you just said that our ability to affect our environments was materially different from an animal's (specifically, a beaver) ability to affect its environment because we're somehow special. That's anthropocentricism. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it's nonsense. There is absolutely no objective or empirical basis for it; your entire argument is circular, in that you're ultimately using your postulate that humans are somehow special and above nature to prove that humans are somehow special and above nature. Thus, "anthropocentric nonsense". Third, I specifically stated that, as anthropocentric nonsense, this wasn't science. And it's not. At best, it's metaphysics.

Of course, SRV strung his electric with heavy gauge strings - as I recall his sixth string (the low E) was actually a bass guitar string, and his third string (the G) was actually a wound string - maybe the D on a normally strung guitar. He also tuned to an E-flat (and in that clip it sounds like he's got the 12-string tuned down a half-step as well), but the strings were stiff as hell regardless...to SRV, a 12-string probably didn't feel all that much stiffer than his Strat.

Gay instrument. Matches your car.

I hear the Cowboys are hiring...

I think I saw them on the Beltway yesterday...

Muskrat Love.

Let me try to explain it to you in haiku: I hate New England. God, do I hate New England. I hate New England. The Bills don't have to do well for me to hate the Patriots. The only prerequisite is that the Patriots exist.

Yeah! yeah! Take that Brady, you ing ass-pirate!

Grevey's in Falls Church is closer to Vienna than Bailey's in Crystal City, and should be showing Sabres games. Grevey's is sort-of "known" as a Buffalo sports bar (bar manager's a big Bills fan, they show Sabres games as well). Bailey's, though, has more cowbell. Looks like the games that'll be on for your trip are a Boston game on the 17th and Philly on the 20th...and the Philly game's tentatively scheduled to be shown on "Versus" (stupid name for a network ). Anyone with cable in this area gets Versus (though they probably don't know it; I don't think anyone watches it except hockey fans).