Bungee Jumper Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 But if you're saying that the ranks of East German engineers and scientists consisted mostly of stupid party members, you'd be wrong. Based on what? How much do you actually know about the East German scientific community? The latter point is far more relevant to the interpretation of the Weiss data than the former. 816181[/snapback] ...because Weiss did a bang-up job differentiating the smart scientists from the party apparatchiks. Weiss' paper is sh--. It's nonsense. He's the quintessential example of a really, really stupid scientist of the type you claim didn't exist in East Germany. Did you bother asking yourself why he used East German data instead of setting up his own study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Based on what? How much do you actually know about the East German scientific community? More to the point, how much do you actually know? Are you actually trying to say that most East German scientists and engineers were ignorant party hacks? ...because Weiss did a bang-up job differentiating the smart scientists from the party apparatchiks. Um, okay, maybe that was what you were trying to say. I'll put this as gently as possible, and tell you this isn't exactly one of your stronger objections. You'd think that after the Soviets put Sputnik in orbit most people would realize that even if their system couldn't do anything else, it could at least identify talented scientists and engineers. Weiss' paper is sh--. It's nonsense. He's the quintessential example of a really, really stupid scientist of the type you claim didn't exist in East Germany. Did you bother asking yourself why he used East German data instead of setting up his own study? Weiss did what he did because there was really good data available: From 1963 to 1971 about 2,800,000 East German school children participated in nine nation-wide mathematical competitions (Engel, Pirl and Titze, 1971). In the first stage of the selection process, repeated each year in each school, nearly all mentally normal students of an age between 10 and 18 years took part. These scores were winnowed to find the 1329 students who demonstrated the highest level of aptitude in math. Altogether, from 524 returned questionnaires and from the filing cards of the 1329 probands we obtained data on about 20,000 individuals. That's a lot of data. Of course, nobody can stop you from throwing it all aside if it doesn't confirm your preconceptions of how the world works. Nor can anyone stop you from characterizing Weiss as "the quintessential example of a really, really stupid scientist." Let's look at some of Weiss's writing, shall we: The terminology of genetics is not always consistent: we can speak of the gene frequency of the allele M1, but we speak of the genotype M1M1. And it is quite correct to speak of major genes instead of alleles of the major gene locus M. The reader should not be disturbed by this, and the author assumes that the facts of Mendelian segregation are common knowledge even among psychologists. That n M1M2-M1M2 marriages with 100 children should segregate theoretically into 25 M1M1, 50 M1M2 and 25 M2M2 children is simply applied probability and combinatorics and not an especially incomprehensible law of nature. Of course, the allele M2 could also be understood as an abstraction and be in reality a series of n alleles with small differences; but with a large difference to the M1 allele or an allele-1 series. And every major gene concept is an abstraction with regard to minor genes and environmental influences (in a broad sense), as is the concept of Spearman` s general intelligence (1904) with regard to broader and more and more fuzzy concepts of intelligence. Yes, Weiss's stupidity is almost palpable. It oozes and drips off the page. Or maybe that was my sarcasm. For you to characterize Weiss as "really, really stupid" detracts from the credibility of your other objections. It makes it seem as though you're unwilling to believe that anyone with whom you disagree could possibly have a working brain cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 It's always amusing to see how some of these threads go, such as this one which started about Air America filing for bankrupcy and is now is a debate about East German scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I've noticed a number of my opponents claiming victory in this eugenics thread. I'm guessing that had, say, Bungee Jumper been a member of the Bills, he would have claimed victory after the Chicago game. "We had them, man. It was total domination." "What about the fact that the Bears beat the Bills 40-7?" "Did you get dropped on your head or something? The Bills totally dominated every aspect of that game." "But what about the final score?" "What about it?" "Don't you think it shows the Bears actually won?" "You're an idiot. Those final score numbers are a lot more complicated than you make them seem." I'll review the objections raised against the eugenics program, as well as my responses. Objection: intelligence may not be determined by genes. Response: the link to the document which demonstrates that 40-80% of differences in intelligence are driven by genetics Objection: intelligence may not be passed from parent to child Response: the study which demonstrated that intelligent parents were much more likely to have intelligent children than were unintelligent parents Objection: the study's method of measuring parental intelligence was flawed, because it relied on occupational data and educational achievements. In East Germany, occupation was determined more by political patronage than by ability. Response: Generally, jobs like "nuclear physicist" and "chemical engineer" are given only to those with appropriate training and ability. If you're giving someone a plum job as a favor, it would generally be something like "bureau chief" or "construction foreman" or "sanitation supervisor." Something which a) you'd have authority over other people, and therefore seem important, and b) where you could do an adequate job without having an excessively high level of intelligence or of specialized scientific or engineering knowledge. Presumably, the Soviet-style East German system responded for the "need" for patronage jobs by expanding the bureaucracy and creating plum jobs that way. No evidence was presented that well-connected but unintelligent people would have preferred jobs as physicists or engineers to jobs as bureaucrats or managers. Nor was any evidence presented that such people were, in fact, given such positions. Objection: a eugenics program would result in too low a level of genetic diversity Response: The U.S. has a diverse population of 300 million people. We're not talking about some inbred, endangered species with only 100 members left. Nor are we talking about the thousands of years of genetic isolation which Bungee Jumper described in relation to Native Americans. Not only were those tribes isolated from Europe and Asia, to a large degree their breeding populations were isolated from each other. People were much more likely to marry members of their own tribe than of other tribes. Modern America is very different. Smart people in particular are likely to relocate to new cities in order to pursue specialized jobs. Encouraging smart people to have more children would not reduce the diversity of the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I've noticed a number of my opponents claiming victory in this eugenics thread. I'm guessing that had, say, Bungee Jumper been a member of the Bills, he would have claimed victory after the Chicago game. "We had them, man. It was total domination." "What about the fact that the Bears beat the Bills 40-7?" "Did you get dropped on your head or something? The Bills totally dominated every aspect of that game." "But what about the final score?" "What about it?" "Don't you think it shows the Bears actually won?" "You're an idiot. Those final score numbers are a lot more complicated than you make them seem." 821320[/snapback] Sure He Would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Since you're back on the eugenics kick again, care to enlighten us on how your marketing research statitiscal whiz professor would design the casting call for America's Stupidest Woman? What would it take? $1? $100? $1,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I've noticed a number of my opponents claiming victory in this eugenics thread. I'm guessing that had, say, Bungee Jumper been a member of the Bills, he would have claimed victory after the Chicago game. "We had them, man. It was total domination." "What about the fact that the Bears beat the Bills 40-7?" "Did you get dropped on your head or something? The Bills totally dominated every aspect of that game." "But what about the final score?" "What about it?" "Don't you think it shows the Bears actually won?" "You're an idiot. Those final score numbers are a lot more complicated than you make them seem." I'll review the objections raised against the eugenics program, as well as my responses. Objection: intelligence may not be determined by genes. Response: the link to the document which demonstrates that 40-80% of differences in intelligence are driven by genetics Objection: intelligence may not be passed from parent to child Response: the study which demonstrated that intelligent parents were much more likely to have intelligent children than were unintelligent parents Objection: the study's method of measuring parental intelligence was flawed, because it relied on occupational data and educational achievements. In East Germany, occupation was determined more by political patronage than by ability. Response: Generally, jobs like "nuclear physicist" and "chemical engineer" are given only to those with appropriate training and ability. If you're giving someone a plum job as a favor, it would generally be something like "bureau chief" or "construction foreman" or "sanitation supervisor." Something which a) you'd have authority over other people, and therefore seem important, and b) where you could do an adequate job without having an excessively high level of intelligence or of specialized scientific or engineering knowledge. Presumably, the Soviet-style East German system responded for the "need" for patronage jobs by expanding the bureaucracy and creating plum jobs that way. No evidence was presented that well-connected but unintelligent people would have preferred jobs as physicists or engineers to jobs as bureaucrats or managers. Nor was any evidence presented that such people were, in fact, given such positions. Objection: a eugenics program would result in too low a level of genetic diversity Response: The U.S. has a diverse population of 300 million people. We're not talking about some inbred, endangered species with only 100 members left. Nor are we talking about the thousands of years of genetic isolation which Bungee Jumper described in relation to Native Americans. Not only were those tribes isolated from Europe and Asia, to a large degree their breeding populations were isolated from each other. People were much more likely to marry members of their own tribe than of other tribes. Modern America is very different. Smart people in particular are likely to relocate to new cities in order to pursue specialized jobs. Encouraging smart people to have more children would not reduce the diversity of the gene pool. 821320[/snapback] Actually, all those response were answered. Your counter was "Neener neener neener. I'm smarter than you." Do you get some sort of perverse pleasure out of looking like a complete fool? I've never seen anyone so tenaciously dedicated to being an utter moron...including Ed, ICE, and BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Actually, all those response were answered. Your counter was "Neener neener neener. I'm smarter than you." Do you get some sort of perverse pleasure out of looking like a complete fool? I've never seen anyone so tenaciously dedicated to being an utter moron...including Ed, ICE, and BF. 821446[/snapback] Does creating fact free posts bother you at all? Even in the slightest? Take the issue of whether East German scientists and engineers were selected based on patronage (as you contend) or ability. You provided precisely zero support for your contention. Yet for disagreeing with your baseless and erroneous assertion, you label me "tenaciously dedicated to being an utter moron." I've successfully addressed each of the objections you've raised. I guess that explains why you've resorted to namecalling and to bold-faced but baseless victory claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Actually, all those response were answered. Your counter was "Neener neener neener. I'm smarter than you." Do you get some sort of perverse pleasure out of looking like a complete fool? I've never seen anyone so tenaciously dedicated to being an utter moron...including Ed, ICE, and BF. 821446[/snapback] !@#$ing bastard having the same initials as me, still gets me sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 !@#$ing bastard having the same initials as me, still gets me sometimes. 821501[/snapback] I think you should change your nickname Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I've successfully addressed each of the objections you've raised. I guess that explains why you've resorted to namecalling and to bold-faced but baseless victory claims. 821476[/snapback] No, you haven't. You think you have, but you're not even capable of recognizing that you haven't. That's why you're such a pain in the ass to argue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I think you should change your nickname 821502[/snapback] But I've used it since AOL 95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 No, you haven't. You think you have, but you're not even capable of recognizing that you haven't. That's why you're such a pain in the ass to argue with. 821681[/snapback] You are accusing moi of being a pain to argue with?!?! I'm in a state of deep and utter shock. You do the following: a) Claim that you've proven your case beyond any reasonable doubt when you've merely made an incorrect and unsupported assertion. b) Make at least three argumentum ad hominum attacks before breakfast, just to help with the digestion. c) Claim that those who don't buy into your generally unsupported assertions must be brain dead. d) Make vague accusations, because specific accusations are easier to refute. So instead of saying, "I felt the article was flawed because of point X," you'll say, "You must not have read the article. " e) Make vague, grandiose claims about having won a given argument, even if there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support that. Even in the post quoted above, you've demonstrated traits a), c), e). No doubt you think this makes you an ace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 But I've used it since AOL 95 821707[/snapback] And it's time you retire it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And it's time you retire it 821738[/snapback] I'm not creative to come up with another name damnit! Well, Brewfire would be humerous, but it shares the same flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 But I've used it since AOL 95 821707[/snapback] I suggest you keep the name, and grin and bear the BF situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I'm not creative to come up with another name damnit! Well, Brewfire would be humerous, but it shares the same flaw. 821743[/snapback] How about Losman's arm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 How about Losman's arm... 821750[/snapback] I advise against it. Before this most recent draft, I argued that the Bills should use their first round pick on a guy like Cutler. I added that if the Bills could get a 3rd round pick for Holcomb in a trade, they should probably take it. It felt a little awkward to say these things given my screen name. In the future, BlueFire may want to say similar things about Losman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I suggest you keep the name, and grin and bear the BF situation. 821749[/snapback] Damn Blue Fire, if this isn't reason enough to change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Damn Blue Fire, if this isn't reason enough to change... 821955[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts