Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 mechanic and teacher. i guess society would have been better off had my mom gotten her tubes tied, instead of working her ass off and going to night school while she was raising me by herself. I'm not even sure why my mom even bothered getting her Masters degree. she should have just accepted her place in society and done nothing. Maybe she would have made some money by winning "The world's dumbest woman". 822233[/snapback] Mechanic and teacher? But you're working on your PhD...your parents aren't smart enough for you to be that smart. Maybe you're adopted? Hell, maybe you're not East German. That might explain it, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Dont !@#$ with me when it comes to science. you are way over your head. It's comments like this which led to the bull in a china shop reference. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion about a subtle and complex issue with someone who comes across as enraged and hostile as you? If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that you refuted a straw man. I acknowledged that tens millions of years ago, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere were higher than they are today. I pointed out that this gradual decrease in the atmosphere's carbon level is one possible reason for why the world was generally warmer during the days of the dinosaurs than it is today. As for the feathers on dinosaurs, I'm well aware of the fact that at least some predatory bipedal dinosaurs had type-4 feathers. (Type-5 feathers are the most complex; and are found on modern flying birds. Type 4 feathers are basically symmetrical type 5 feathers, and are also found on birds.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Mechanic and teacher? But you're working on your PhD...your parents aren't smart enough for you to be that smart. Maybe you're adopted? I see you failed to comprehend the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 It's comments like this which led to the bull in a china shop reference. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion about a subtle and complex issue with someone who comes across as enraged and hostile as you? If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that you refuted a straw man. I acknowledged that tens millions of years ago, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere were higher than they are today. I pointed out that this gradual decrease in the atmosphere's carbon level is one possible reason for why the world was generally warmer during the days of the dinosaurs than it is today. As for the feathers on dinosaurs, I'm well aware of the fact that at least some predatory bipedal dinosaurs had type-4 feathers. (Type-5 feathers are the most complex; and are found on modern flying birds. Type 4 feathers are basically symmetrical type 5 feathers, and are also found on birds.) 822323[/snapback] "Type 5" feathers? Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I see you failed to comprehend the study. 822325[/snapback] I comprehended it just fine. Better than you. Probably because I actually read it. And some of the papers it referenced. That's the difference between being educated and being...well, you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 It's comments like this which led to the bull in a china shop reference. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion about a subtle and complex issue with someone who comes across as enraged and hostile as you? 822323[/snapback] How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who relies on falsehoods, faulty statistics, and cannot even comprehend what other people have written? You are too dumb to even recognize your own stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You are too dumb to even recognize your own stupidity. 822351[/snapback] Wouldn't the double negative make him smart? (in his eyes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 I comprehended it just fine. Oh really? Because the study never implied that every last janitor is stupid, nor did it imply that every last nuclear physicist is smart. Weiss clearly believed that there would be a lot more smart people in a group of 100 nuclear physicists than in a group of 100 janitors. Yes, this belief is integral to his study. Yes, he used career choice as part of his method for estimating parental intelligence. But you know what? He also estimated that, for men, this method would be in error 10% of the time. The humility implied by the error term shows that Weiss would have been too wise to dismiss the possibility that two people of humble career origins could produce an intelligent son or daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 It's comments like this which led to the bull in a china shop reference. How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion about a subtle and complex issue with someone who comes across as enraged and hostile as you? If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that you refuted a straw man. I acknowledged that tens millions of years ago, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere were higher than they are today. I pointed out that this gradual decrease in the atmosphere's carbon level is one possible reason for why the world was generally warmer during the days of the dinosaurs than it is today. As for the feathers on dinosaurs, I'm well aware of the fact that at least some predatory bipedal dinosaurs had type-4 feathers. (Type-5 feathers are the most complex; and are found on modern flying birds. Type 4 feathers are basically symmetrical type 5 feathers, and are also found on birds.) 822323[/snapback] type 4 and type 5 feathers? do you wake up in the morning and say to yourself "lets see how big of a moron i can look like today." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 How is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who relies on falsehoods, faulty statistics, and cannot even comprehend what other people have written? You are too dumb to even recognize your own stupidity. 822351[/snapback] There isn't a single true word in your post. I just see more bull-in-the-china-shop type hostility and anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 type 4 and type 5 feathers? do you wake up in the morning and say to yourself "lets see how big of a moron i can look like today." 822369[/snapback] The article I read classified feathers according to their complexity. Type 1 feathers were the simplest, and supposedly the first to appear. IIRC, type 1 feathers were down. Over time, animals evolved more complex types of feathers. Type 5 feathers are asymmetric, and are associated strictly with flight. Dinosaurs had type 4 feathers; which is basically a type 5 feather without the asymmetry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Oh really? Because the study never implied that every last janitor is stupid, nor did it imply that every last nuclear physicist is smart. Weiss clearly believed that there would be a lot more smart people in a group of 100 nuclear physicists than in a group of 100 janitors. Yes, this belief is integral to his study. Yes, he used career choice as part of his method for estimating parental intelligence. But you know what? He also estimated that, for men, this method would be in error 10% of the time. The humility implied by the error term shows that Weiss would have been too wise to dismiss the possibility that two people of humble career origins could produce an intelligent son or daughter. 822368[/snapback] No, it didn't imply that. You inferred it. Erroneously, from a piss-poor study. I'm not mocking the study - though well I could. I'm mocking you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The article I read classified feathers according to their complexity. Type 1 feathers were the simplest, and supposedly the first to appear. IIRC, type 1 feathers were down. Over time, animals evolved more complex types of feathers. Type 5 feathers are asymmetric, and are associated strictly with flight. Dinosaurs had type 4 feathers; which is basically a type 5 feather without the asymmetry. 822381[/snapback] I read the same thing...in an article on tying flies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 There isn't a single true word in your post. I just see more bull-in-the-china-shop type hostility and anger. 822371[/snapback] I don't think he's angry. I think he's highly amused by you. I know I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I don't think he's angry. I think he's highly amused by you. I know I am. 822385[/snapback] It IS rather amusing, but its not really fair. Kind of like when everyone gets the joke except the person it is being played on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 No, it didn't imply that. You inferred it. Erroneously, from a piss-poor study. I'm not mocking the study - though well I could. I'm mocking you. 822382[/snapback] Mocking me for what? For believing that genetics play a major role in determining intelligence? That's mainstream science, buddy. Or are you mocking me for saying that the intelligence of biological parents is a strong predictor of the intelligence of children? Because that, too, is something which is supported, and supported very strongly. The predicted I.Q. of a child is determined by the following formula: Expected I.Q. = (average I.Q. of population) + (heritability)^2 * ((average I.Q. of parents) - (average I.Q. of population)) In 1995, the American Psychological Association's task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that the heritability of I.Q. was "around .75." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 I don't think he's angry. You don't think he's angry?!?!?!? What on earth planet are you living on? Have you been abducted by space aliens or something--aliens that are using your fingers to transmit their own weird thoughts? This guy has "anger management issues" written all over him. In big neon letters. If you're too blind to see that . . . well, I guess it wouldn't be the first time you were too blind to see something obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 This thread has really degenerated so I'm gonna try making it a little more intellectual and grown up... Picard > Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 This thread has really degenerated so I'm gonna try making it a little more intellectual and grown up... Picard > Kirk 822557[/snapback] I think we need cromagnum and his long list of youtube videos to bring it back up to par . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Mocking me for what? For believing that genetics play a major role in determining intelligence? That's mainstream science, buddy. Or are you mocking me for saying that the intelligence of biological parents is a strong predictor of the intelligence of children? Because that, too, is something which is supported, and supported very strongly. The predicted I.Q. of a child is determined by the following formula: Expected I.Q. = (average I.Q. of population) + (heritability)^2 * ((average I.Q. of parents) - (average I.Q. of population)) In 1995, the American Psychological Association's task force on "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" concluded that the heritability of I.Q. was "around .75." 822440[/snapback] 1) That equation is bull sh--. The one in the article isn't, necessarily (it's incorrect for being incomplete - but not bull sh--). But naturally, you being you, you don't understand the math and !@#$ed it all up. 2) Heritability and inheritability are two different things, you fool! How many times do you have to have it explained to you? 3) I'm mocking you for taking bits and pieces of things out of context, without understanding them, to suit your own bull sh-- eugenics beliefs. Hell, if you read the Wikipedia link you provided, you'd see that it contradicts everything you've said!!!! Particularly the equation which you took out of context, which demonstrates that your eugenics program will not work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts