Genes are key to academic success

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailchu

but why even make different fixed requirement scores and not just the same range for all ethnicities in which you have to be in in that case? is the average private life really a reason for different score requirements? probably not. asian americans make up only 5.6% of the total american population but they make up 25% of the students that are entering harvard in 2023. harvard and other such universities probably just want to ensure that one ethnicity doesn't take over so they stay ethnically diverse. that has bad but also good sides. though if they really just wanted the best it would look different.

---

The problem with this argument is when there were no Asians being "better", the diversity argument was simply non-existent, and white Americans were 100%.

I am not American, and I am not Asian. But I find highly distressing that a child that deserves, for his/her own merits, to "be there", is just expelled because he is in the "wrong" ethnic group, and instead, others with less merits, "are there" because they are in the "right" ethnic group.

In my opinion, this is simply racism (but a racism that is OK for the "anti-racists").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Farstar

The problem with this argument is when there were no Asians being "better", the diversity argument was simply non-existent, and white Americans were 100%.

I am not American, and I am not Asian. But I find highly distressing that a child that deserves, for his/her own merits, to "be there", is just expelled because he is in the "wrong" ethnic group, and instead, others with less merits, "are there" because they are in the "right" ethnic group.

In my opinion, this is simply racism (but a racism that is OK for the "anti-racists").

---

as soon as you implement different score requirements, it's racist no matter how you look at it imo. if harvard really looks at a persons private life, and they didn't care about race, there would be no need for a difference in required scores. maybe harvard jusfifies it with an increased diversity at the universities, which leads to higher acceptance and helps to fight racism in the future since different social layers get a chance to climb up the ladder. and an increased diversity might be beneficial for the campus and the scientific community at the university.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailchu

as soon as you implement different score requirements, it's racist no matter how you look at it imo. if harvard really looks at a persons private life, and they didn't care about race, there would be no need for a difference in required scores. maybe harvard jusfifies it with an increased diversity at the universities, which leads to higher acceptance and helps to fight racism in the future since different social layers get a chance to climb up the ladder. and an increased diversity might be beneficial for the campus and the scientific community at the university.

---

You are accepting my thesis: there is a good racism, and a bad one. The good racism is against Asians. I cannot believe that anybody would support racism against African-Americans, for example, under the argument of the "future common good".

Also, if you want to do a pros&cons analysis of your proposal of "good racism" for the "future common good" (which I deeply dislike), you also need to take into account the negatives: for example, the resentment of the Asians. Or the possibility they leave the country.

Let me recall most of the geniuses in the world were people with clearly not the skills needed for Harvard nowadays (and I am not one of those!). In the end, the person that will solve big scientific problems will not be a person playing well a given sport, but a deeply committed and intelligent person.

Harvard does not owe anybody, anything. They are a private school. They can admit whoever they want. If you want to complain, complain about the legacies and kids of donors or politicians.
Once you are admitted to Harvard you they will not let you fail. They have a stake in admitting people that are successful. I know you think that scientists that win the Nobel Prize are prized at Harvard. But a successful Facebook founder or Microsoft founder will do more for the reputation of Harvard than 10 Nobel prizes for medicine.

As far as East Asians leaving the US, we will survive. And if you have noticed lately, there is a movement to consider national security implications in admitting and or hiring East Asian scientists, particularly Chinese.

Harvard gets Federal Research Grants (my money 😡) and other perks.

Harvard owes me!

Hot off the presses...sort of. :)

"The heritability of intelligence increases linearly from around 20% in infancy to 40 to 50% in adolescence, then 60% in young adulthood, upward to 80% (or even higher) in later adulthood, but probably declines somewhat after age 80./ The full effect of heritabilty occurs by mid-adulthood. This is due to something called the “Wilson Effect” -- a tenet of behavior genetics that, as people age, their genes exert more influence over IQ, and the influence of environmental factors decreases.

https://twitter.com/a_centrism/statu...14965114712064

It seems the debate is over. Now, we have to make sure the data isn't used for nefarious purposes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3lZe2OTBfQ

From the university of California:

Of those factors, moreover, race has become the strongest predictor. Rather than declining in salience, race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education in accounting for test score differences.

As people have stated before, if you want to have high IQ kids, marry somebody who comes from a high IQ family.

Bangladesh is doing the opposite of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley schools that the tech geniuses are sending their kids to, are removing technology from the classroom and teaching them the old fashion way. They recognize that face to face and paper and pen are far more valuable to their kids than technology.

https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/si...ed-flag-2018-2

I was telling those in Bangladesh on a forum that simply giving their kids technology will not impart high IQs onto them, technology is a tool, not some panacea to solve education problems. For it made the news that Bangladesh wants to give every student a tablet to learn, and having this technology they think should improve grades. If somebody has difficulty learning from books, technology is not going to solve the problem. With technology, you have access to more information, so yes, technology is great, it destroys old false beliefs because the amount of facts you have at your fingertips. But those who excelled without technology will excel with technology. If you were not interested in learning with books, simply having a tablet is not going to raise IQs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

As for the following, it's not only vastly incorrect, but it's bizarre. By that standard Germans should have low IQs.

Europeans get no prizes for being humane. For goodness sakes, the Balkan Wars with their mass rape as a tactic of war and their genocide and ethnic cleansing was barely thirty years ago, World War II seventy years ago. I still have some ancient aunts who lived through it. Don't tell me how civilized Germans are. It wasn't just the SS who burned my people alive in their churches. It was the Wehrmacht too. And most of them got away with it. My own people did their share. What is humane in bombing Ethiopian villagers in their huts?

Please.

Messier:

---

Christianity for 2000 years sort of tamed barbarism. Allowing Universities to rise and learning and technology to grow. The Church both flourished learning and stifled learning (as was the case of Galileo), but the barbarians that the 'civilized' Romans could not tame were tamed by a religion, which allowed the continuation of Near East and Greco-Roman learning to carry on during the Middle Ages, causing the Industrial Revolution and nearly everything that we think about as modern life.

But as Christianity waned, barbarism returned, as was the case of occult Nazis Germany. The barbarians returned to their ways. The rise of the 'far right' is the continuation of the return.

@salento
We both know that any college Ivy league or not is a business and their primary goal is to make money. If it's more profitable to admit people with 2.5 GPA's or chipmunks they will gladly do so.

The majority of the classes i took in college/University taught me how to waste money and time learning
nothing ill ever need to know to excel in the profession I wanted

I completely agree with your post number 47, and partly agree with post number 48.

Where I differ as to the latter is that Christianity either wasn't able to completely tame the beast or actively encouraged him, i.e. the slaughter even of Christians in the Near East during the Crusades, as well, of course, as the near genocide of the Jews in Central Europe, the Albigensian Crusade, etc. Even World War I, which destroyed an entire generation of young men, and was, I think, even bloodier than World War II, was fought with each European country sure that God was on their side.

I will concede that the two worst ideologies ever to spring from the culture of the West, Nazism and Communism, were both atheistic and were sworn enemies of Christianity.

For me, all it proves is what the good sisters taught me: there is no human endeavor or institution which isn't flawed, because they are created by men and men are fatally flawed, men in the universal sense of humankind, of course. :) So, the Church is not, was not, and never could be perfect, as there are no perfect Christians, and never were. It's an aspiration for believers, not an achieved goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davef

@salento
We both know that any college Ivy league or not is a business and their primary goal is to make money. If it's more profitable to admit people with 2.5 GPA's or chipmunks they will gladly do so.

The majority of the classes i took in college/University taught me how to waste money and time learning
nothing ill ever need to know to excel in the profession I wanted

---

I don't think you wasted your money by attending classes unrelated to your Profession.

Besides making money, the main goal of your College was to teach you the basic subject of the career you chose, and to give you a decent General Education.

One can be efficient in math or IT languages, but he/she must also be capable of having a high level conversation in a variety of subjects, and be able to write a comprehensive grammatically perfect letter.

You also want to sound educated when you talk to people, they'll take you more seriously, Smarty Pants :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Hot off the presses...sort of. :)

"The heritability of intelligence increases linearly from around 20% in infancy to 40 to 50% in adolescence, then 60% in young adulthood, upward to 80% (or even higher) in later adulthood, but probably declines somewhat after age 80./ The full effect of heritabilty occurs by mid-adulthood. This is due to something called the “Wilson Effect” -- a tenet of behavior genetics that, as people age, their genes exert more influence over IQ, and the influence of environmental factors decreases.

https://twitter.com/a_centrism/statu...14965114712064

It seems the debate is over. Now, we have to make sure the data isn't used for nefarious purposes.

---

the debate is far from over. explain how the average iq in the west was able to increase by 0.3 points every year since the 1930's?

your link leads to twitter profile named "a new radical centrism" with the description "1/ A Daily Thread of Rough Draft Excerpts From an Article I'm Writing on Race and IQ." and there are lots of other posts about race.
but i think high heritability does not mean that the environment has a weaker effect than with low heritability so these results have little value for a discussion about race. so we see, the data is already beeing misused.

You just don't want to accept that you're not going to change someone's IQ by early intervention or playing Mozart to children or reading to them at two. The latter worked for me, and I started reading at about four. That's rare, however. Even my brother didn't read until four almost five, although he was always better than I am at math.

It is what it is. Even by the studies you quoted it's 50-60% heritable. That's why all those tens of millions spent on Head Start have been a total waste of time and money.

Your last sentence is a jumble, but I'll try to respond to what I think you mean. As all the identical twin studies have shown time and time again, home environment has a very small effect. Ask the parents of adopted children. There's even a very recent paper on IQ in Africa which shows the same thing.

The legitimate question is: what then accounts for the remaining percentage if it isn't home environment or the classroom, which have both been shown to have minimum impact. I'm leaning toward the idea it may be something in the in utero environment, or epigenetics. They certainly should be investigated.

I don't see any point in continuing the discussion. If you don't want to accept the scientific evidence, don't. It's still a free country, sort of...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

You just don't want to accept that you're not going to change someone's IQ by early intervention or playing Mozart to children or reading to them at two. The latter worked for me, and I started reading at about four. That's rare, however. Even my brother didn't read until four almost five, although he was always better than I am at math.

---

8
good for you (heritability is lowest during early childhood btw so it might not even be that rare with given similar environment), but what exactly makes you think that i don't accept scientific evidence? you can't use the heritability numbers of the study in question for a discussion about iq differences between racial groups. so the person from twitter is misusing the data. it seems like the person doesn't understand heritability.
i never said there is no correlation between genes and iq but the discussion is far from over.

and explain how the average iq was able to increase by 0.3% every year? only because of genetic reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

"The legitimate question is: what then accounts for the remaining percentage if it isn't home environment or the classroom, which have both been shown to have minimum impact. I'm leaning toward the idea it may be something in the in utero environment, or epigenetics. They certainly should be investigated."

---

it could be epigenetics, uterus environment but it could also just be random effects for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailchu

good for you but what exactly makes you think that i don't accept scientific evidence? you can't use the heritability numbers of the study in question for a discussion about iq differences between racial groups. so the person from twitter is misusing the data. it seems like the person doesn't understand heritability.
i never said there is no correlation between genes and iq but the discussion is far from over.

and explain how the average iq was able to increase by 0.3% every year? only because of genetic reasons?




it could be epigenetics, uterus environment but it could also just be random effects for example.

---

Last comment.

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

The pen and ink, or now, computer tests, (NOT the ones with 20 questions you can take online, but the kind administered in schools), aren't as accurate, and rely far more on learned abilities. If a paper is tracking changes in IQ over time the latter kind of test may be measuring more than just raw ability. In the same way, SAT scores are not really synonymous with IQ, because you can't do a verbal analogy without having learned the meaning of the words, or a trigonometry problem without having taken trigonometry. Of course, it's a rough indication, because if you don't have a certain level of cognitive function, you can't learn those things.

The one on one hours long test is a much better approximation of IQ.

I never said the particular study I was discussing said anything about race. I was talking about IQ in general. However, there are plenty of papers which do study it. All you have to do is read them. I would guard against relying upon any work by Lynn, however. His methodology was shockingly poor, mixing all sorts of testing, and not strictly IQ testing, and he even used what he called "approximations", if you can believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

---

That is like the one I took, when I was in 2nd grade. My parents took me to be evaluated by a professional, at a hospital.

He asked me a series of questions, as well as to draw a picture of my family. I recall, one of the questions, was if I could explain what hieroglyphics were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Last comment.

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

The pen and ink, or now, computer tests, (NOT the ones with 20 questions you can take online, but the kind administered in schools), aren't as accurate, and rely far more on learned abilities. If a paper is tracking changes in IQ over time the latter kind of test may be measuring more than just raw ability. In the same way, SAT scores are not really synonymous with IQ, because you can't do a verbal analogy without having learned the meaning of the words, or a trigonometry problem without having taken trigonometry. Of course, it's a rough indication, because if you don't have a certain level of cognitive function, you can't learn those things.

The one on one hours long test is a much better approximation of IQ.

I never said the particular study I was discussing said anything about race. I was talking about IQ in general. However, there are plenty of papers which do study it. All you have to do is read them. I would guard against relying upon any work by Lynn, however. His methodology was shockingly poor, mixing all sorts of testing, and not strictly IQ testing, and he even used what he called "approximations", if you can believe it.

---

so your answer fo the increasing average iq over the last few years is a change in iq test quality and wrong methodology? i can't argue against that since i'm no expert but it seems that this is not the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_...d_explanations
"because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years. Meta-analytic findings indicate that Flynn effects occur for tests assessing both fluid and crystallized abilities. For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.^[11]"

it could be that your raw ability like for example spatial thinking can be increased through practice too.
about race and iq there are indeed plenty of papers but their conclusions all vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailchu

so your answer fo the increasing average iq over the last few years is a change in iq test quality and wrong methodology? i can't argue against that since i'm no expert but it seems that this is not the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_...d_explanations
"because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary, arithmetic or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years. Meta-analytic findings indicate that Flynn effects occur for tests assessing both fluid and crystallized abilities. For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.^[11]"

it could be that your raw ability like for example spatial thinking can be increased through practice too.
about race and iq there are indeed plenty of papers but their conclusions all vary.

---

The ones with good methodology, large numbers of samples, etc. all come to the same conclusion. There are differences in IQ by continent wide "breeding" groups, to use the approved terminology.

You won't be persuaded, so there's no point in continuing.

It should also be noted that the stultifying rigidness of lower-IQ individuals in academic administrations are a detriment to society as a whole. But I guess, paying people not to think, but to do, is how left-wing policies are exacted. They're like petty dictators at the cash register, that don't want to give you the sale, until the manager has to step in.

I remember having to deal with admins was an absolute nightmare. These people obviously don't care about their tasks, and are only there to collect a paycheck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jovialis

It should also be noted that the stultifying rigidness of lower-IQ individuals in academic administrations are a detriment to society as a whole. But I guess, paying people not to think, but to do, is how left-wing policies are exacted. They're like petty dictators at the cash register, that don't want to give you the sale, until the manager has to step in.

I remember having to deal with admins was an absolute nightmare. These people obviously don't care about their tasks, and are only there to collect a paycheck.

---

I know there will be massive upheaval in the future, due to automations. But I find myself caring less, and less about what will become of people who will no longer have utility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Last comment.

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

The pen and ink, or now, computer tests, (NOT the ones with 20 questions you can take online, but the kind administered in schools), aren't as accurate, and rely far more on learned abilities. If a paper is tracking changes in IQ over time the latter kind of test may be measuring more than just raw ability. In the same way, SAT scores are not really synonymous with IQ, because you can't do a verbal analogy without having learned the meaning of the words, or a trigonometry problem without having taken trigonometry. Of course, it's a rough indication, because if you don't have a certain level of cognitive function, you can't learn those things.

The one on one hours long test is a much better approximation of IQ.

I never said the particular study I was discussing said anything about race. I was talking about IQ in general. However, there are plenty of papers which do study it. All you have to do is read them. I would guard against relying upon any work by Lynn, however. His methodology was shockingly poor, mixing all sorts of testing, and not strictly IQ testing, and he even used what he called "approximations", if you can believe it.

---

I agree with you 100 percent about how sat scores aren't synonymous with iq. As an example, I hated and I mean HATED math and English in high school. They were SO BORING to this student with ADHD and anything that is boring to someone with ADHD does not gain entrance to the brain.

I would've done better if I had paid attention in math and English class and if i had been lucky enough to be quizzed on the vocabulary words I knew.

Now fast forward a decade and a half and I'm sure all my high school math teachers would be stunned by all the A's I got in college math with two years of calculus, physics, my degree in computer science and the fact that I was an honor student in grad school. Im also quite successful in my career which is most important of all. I started paying attention in college math classes bc I knew they were relevant to my degree.

My point is that this (sat) test isn't an absolute predictor of success in college or life but that's my own opinion. Cognitive capacity or IQ is a much stronger predictor

Some people thought I was short in middle / high school, lol
in reality a skipped 2 years.

It wasn't because I was smarter than the others (maybe just a bit).

I attended a private elementary school run by Catholic Nuns.

My education level and attitude at that age, was much higher than the average State Middle Schooler.

Nuns were tough and scary, who knows, maybe their tactics increased my IQ :angry: :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salento

Some people thought I was short in middle / high school, lol
in reality a skipped 2 years.

It wasn't because I was smarter than the others (maybe just a bit).

I attended a private elementary school run by Catholic Nuns.

My education level and attitude at that age, was much higher than the average State Middle Schooler.

Nuns were tough and scary, who knows, maybe their tactics increased my IQ :angry: :)

---

If any teaching method could, it would be theirs. :)

I'm assuming your experience was like mine: ruthless grounding in the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. I've never regretted that. I can still diagram a sentence. :) You'd never have to take remedial English and math in Junior College if the nuns had the teaching of primary school students.

Of course, there was also the social training. I saw one of the sisters sailing into the boys' restroom at full tilt to break up a fight, and grabbing big twelve year old boys by the ear to get them to the wash basin to have their mouths washed out with soap for swearing. Those pointers for the blackboard came in handy too. Whack! Right across the fingers. Or, they just used their hands. My husband was called to the front of the classroom for throwing spitballs. She slapped him right across the face. He hounded his mother until she sent him to public school. Wimp! :)

Today, they'd get arrested.

Of course, I was an angel in deportment, played Mary at the May processionals and nuns in the school plays, so it was fine for me. :)
Only time I ever got hit was with the pointer when I made mistakes at the piano or in penmanship. I can tell you my script even today is like calligraphy. :)

I think psychologists today would call that adapted behavior!

My father told me about his experience going to school in Italy. He had a really mean draconian teacher in 5th grade, that used to hit the children on the hands with a ruler for misbehaving. One day my father simply had laughed at what another student was doing, and as a result, he was beaten very badly for it. My Uncle, who is 15 years older than my father, went down to the school the next day, and told the teacher:

“If I ever see my brother come home with bruises again, I’m coming back here, and I’m going to throw you head first through the window.”

However, the next day, my father was expelled from school because of that.

@Angela Suor Giulia harsh teaching methods Transcended Continents :)

She often said:

... You will not like them, but those who push you to do better, are those that really care about you.

... Those you like because they're easy on you, most likely don’t care about you.

multi tool teaching method :petrified: (ouch) :grin::

https://www.fabricland.co.uk/wp-cont...4/P4270146.jpg


@Jovialis If we complained about treatment at school, We'd have been told: what did you do to the Suora to deserve this (made it even worse at home :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jovialis

My father told me about his experience going to school in Italy. He had a really mean draconian teacher in 5th grade, that used to hit the children on the hands with a ruler for misbehaving. One day my father simply had laughed at what another student was doing, and as a result, he was beaten very badly for it. My Uncle, who is 15 years older than my father, went down to the school the next day, and told the teacher:

“If I ever see my brother come home with bruises again, I’m coming back here, and I’m going to throw you head first through the window.”

However, the next day, my father was expelled from school because of that.

---

It was like that all over; there are always going to be some sadists around...

From "How Green Was My Valley", set in Wales and one of my favorite movies of all time. The whole film is on youtube. This is some friends of the family of an abused boy taking matters into their own hands:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTv9pmnA0m8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salento

@Angela Suor Giulia harsh teaching methods Transcended Continents :)

She often said:

... You will not like them, but those who push you to do better, are those that really care about you.

... Those you like because they're nice to you, most likely don’t care about you.

multi tool teaching method :petrified: (ouch) :grin::

https://www.fabricland.co.uk/wp-cont...4/P4270146.jpg


@Jovialis If we complained about treatment at school, We'd have been told: what did you do to the Suora to deserve this (made it even worse at home :)

---

I don't even want to think about what my father would have done to me if I'd been disrespectful to the nuns, or acted up.

I did hate some of my sisters, or Mothers as we called them. There was no corporal punishment: all very adapted teen-age girls, although that's hard to believe looking at teenagers today, so there was no need. I may have relayed this before. In senior year, when I had already turned 18, we went on a field trip to a museum. I drove some of the girls in my car. Before we left the museum, I will admit I was told in no uncertain terms that I was not to stop off anywhere on the way back to the school. I will also admit that I disobeyed by stopping off at a Carvel so we could get ice cream cones. Believe it or not, one of the girls had an attack of conscience and reported it. I was hauled off to the principal's office, along with the others. She ranted at us for awhile, at our lack of obedience, dishonesty etc. and all the other girls started crying. I refused to cry. If she had reacted in a different way it might have been different, but as it was my pride wouldn't permit it. She flew into a worse rage, telling me she was going to put it into my transcript. I told her to go ahead, that I was sure the college admissions officers would have a good laugh. I think the only reason I didn't get expelled was because we were like a week away from graduation, and maybe my comment hit home.

The one I really hated was my theology teacher though. She was a brilliant woman with a master's in theology, and wasted at secondary school level. I had no quarrel with her teachings, although I disagreed where I though logic didn't support her. It was that she preached love, love, love all the time, and yet she was a nasty, mean spirited woman with not a shred of generosity in her heart. When one of the girls got pregnant, the first in the history of the school, she was the one who insisted she be expelled right before senior year exams, and that it indeed be written on her transcript. Plus, the things she said about her...

My sense of justice and my hatred of hypocrisy and cant has been with me since childhood, and I detested her for it, as she knew.

Yet...

I cannot tell you how many times over the years since I have heard her voice in my head, not only on intellectual matters, but indeed on matters of conscience.

I would never give her the satisfaction of saying so, however.

I suppose she would have said, "Do as I say, not as I do." That's hard for a teen-ager to understand, though.

My dad was smacked by a nun too when he was a child (and yes she used a ruler)

In public school he had his mouth "washed" with soap for using the wrong language

To be honest, the Nuns were tougher to the girls than the boys.

They wanted to instill a sense of curiosity, confidence and competition among students.

... high expectations.

I'm not sure, but it’s possible that was easier with the boys than the girls (not that much about academics. It was more about approach, resiliency and behavior)

Obviously, there's always the exception :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salento

To be honest, the Nuns were tougher to the girls than the boys.

They wanted to instill a sense of curiosity, confidence and competition among students.

... high expectations.

I'm not sure, but it’s possible that was easier with the boys than the girls (not that much about academics. It was more about approach, resiliency and behavior)

Obviously, there's always the exception :)

---

It was very different at my high school, perhaps because it was the U.S. not Italy, or because it was all girls, or maybe it was that particular Order of nuns; they were a French Canadienne order, hence the emphasis on French and part of the reason why I'm a bit of a Francophile.

The mantra was always that you could do anything the boys could do, and that applied to everything from academics to clubs to sports. I went to the National Teen U.N. debates as one of the delegates from my school. I gave them hell too. :)

I know from lots of other graduates, the vast majority of whom are really grateful for our experience with them, that there is a general feeling that because there were no boys in the school to intimidate the less confident girls (the ones who didn't have a father like mine, perhaps), there was more opportunity to develop leadership skills. We had no choice; we had to run all the clubs, hold all the student government positions, put out the paper and yearly journal, "man" the sports teams. :) It was great practice for the rest of our lives. That's why I'm a big believer in single sex education for girls. It's not very good for boys, imo, unfortunately.

I, and others, have the distinct impression that the nuns chafed themselves at the authority exerted over them by priests and the male hierarchy, and part of that came out in the values they tried to inculcate in us. I always thought Mother Superior deliberately chose a complete nonentity as our chaplain. He did what she told him to do. :)Since it was post Vatican II, that meant we literally, within certain parameters, of course, designed our own services, music etc. He also didn't teach theology. I don't think they believed he was up to it. :)

IQ tests have shown to have 57% to 78% genetic inheritance but sometimes even 80%.
With that being said, some people have simply not managed to explore the full length of their intelligence. I, myself, have seen an updrage of my intelligence thanks to the Math classes I have taken, in High School to University math with proofs and theorical problems from Combinatorics, Real Analysis, Euclidean Geometry etc.

Look at those Middle Eastern countries with an average IQ of 80-85, whose ancestors build great civilisations. 2000 years ago who do you think had the greater average IQ, Mediterranean people or North-Western Europeans?

Nassim Taleb makes the argument that IQ tests do not need to measure intelligence per se. For sure, they measure unintelligence (but as Taleb argues, many crude measurements would also do that).

But IQ tests could also be measuring "submissiveness towards a Master" (combined in some way with "pure" intelligence).

And here Taleb has a point, since IQ tests are almost always consisting of stupid questions. So, people enjoying solving stupid questions posed by others may "look like" to have a higher IQ (since if you enjoy doing something, you put more effort).

It could be "pure" intelligence cannot be measured by IQ tests ... but only by "doing" things.

This interpretation "solves" two of the main arguments in favor of interpreting IQ tests as a form of "pure" intelligence:

- All types of IQ tests give, roughly, the same answer, so they may be measuring the same thing (i.e. intelligence): but for all tests, they are encouraging people loving to do tests. So it makes sense that "good slaves" have good marks in all kind of "stupid" tests
- IQ test results correlate well with how life will treat you: yes, slaves usually have decent lives, since their submissiveness is usually well paid at the corporate level

This description fits me pretty well: IQ tests tell me I am much more intelligent than what I feel I am, given my present and past actions. And I recall I liked doing IQ tests, when I did one (I am embarrassed to acknowledge that). And lots of time during my life, I have been a "good slave". Not anymore.

Sorry, Farstar. I think Taleb is dead wrong on this, and it wouldn't be the first time.

The only true measure of "intelligence" through testing is a one on one test with an educational psychologist. It takes hours. A lot of it involves numbers.

Here it's done whenever there's a suspicion that a child is either gifted or has learning difficulties. In each case, the child belongs in special programs.

Whether someone uses their intelligence to their full capacity is another issue. My brother was a bit hyperactive in elementary school, and wanted to be "one of the guys" in junior high school. A perspicacious teacher recognized his potential, however, had him tested, and told my parents they had to get him to buckle down and study. My parents were flabbergasted; they had thought he was their "less intelligent" child. Well, he wound up getting a PHD from MIT.

IQ comparisons between groups is difficult, especially if you're comparing groups across the world living in extremely different conditions. In many cases you don't have a level playing field; there are differences in nutrition, disease levels, schooling, and other factors. As just one, children in many parts of the world have lived through incredibly traumatic situations, including almost constant violence.

I personally believe differences will still exist, but it's important to consider all the factors. It's also important to understand whom you're testing. If you look at the number of people in the U.S. who have advanced degrees, South Asians are way at the top. Is that because South Asians "genetically" have a higher IQ? Not if you look at scores in India they don't. The fact is that only high caste educated people manage to get into the U.S. It's completely different for Mexicans. Or, look at the "brain drain" many countries have experienced. Prior to 1945 Palestinians were known to have high levels of intellectual achievement from the things I've read. Being packed into camps has put an end to that, as has the migration of many Palestinians abroad.

Most importantly of all, whatever differences we may find exist ARE ABSOLUTELY no excuse for mistreatment, discrimination etc.

Maybe all of this will go away when we can genetically modify embryos for intelligence. It's absolutely clear to me that there will be no role for even average IQ people in the "Brave New World" of the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jovialis

I think these are normal results, as well.

I believe meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for people who have genetically advantageous traits. This study helps to verify that belief. Because it provides individuals the platform to exploit those traits to their advantage, for great incentives.

---

I don't know pure meritocratic society's. It is not like in a running competition that all participant are lined up in a kind of row..... I know competitive society's partly a sake, it's dynamic....but partly doom because people tend to behave like a rat pack, I see the massive use of all kind of drugs as a side effect for example. Rat race to the top.

Abba already forty years ago....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU

The winner takes it all the loser has to fall.

I like society's were there is room for people who wan't to develop themselves (cognitive, creative) but were there is an eye for people who have less or other kind capacities (then iq).

Because when capacities are mostly genetic how fair is a meritocratic society then? Because how to win the 100 meter when you have less abilities than you neighbor in line someone like Usain Bolt? Of course all have the some chance they are standing on the same line as Bolt.....but you don't need much imagination to see what is going to happen after the start.

When people with for examples lesser iq becoming the 'deplorables' and are seen as a bunch of loser.....in the end the society will be gloomy.

IQ is may be overrated other capacities can also make society great!!!

An old lesson for meritocrats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ri...he_Meritocracy

MichaelYoung:

'It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jovialis

Study results suggest genetic influence on social outcomes greater in meritocratic than communistic societies:

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-result...s-greater.html

From April 2018

---

The founding fathers had a very good statement: 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

The societies/ nations that still orientated by this principles are market economies but tempered and they are the best societies for the 'pursuit of happiness'.

The hard boiled meritocratic countries (like the US) seem to have created a deadlock.....the US has fallen down deep.....

https://www.tampabay.com/data/2019/0...piest-country/

^^What utter nonsense. We're leaving Europe in the dust. Russia isn't even in the running.

As they used to say in the Soviet Union: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

Bernie would love you on his team. He thought the bread lines in Socialist Nicaragua were a good sign. Supposedly, in capitalist countries the poor starve and the rich get fat, so lines were a good sign that everyone was more equal. First of all, no one in America is starving unless they're mentally ill or drug addicts. Why the mentally ill aren't in hospitals is a whole other issue. Second of all, it never occurs to him that the optimal situation is not to ration the little that is produced in communist countries, but to have a robust capitalist economy which can produce more so food doesn't have to be rationed, and no one has to stand in line for food.

As for division, I guess you don't pay attention to British news. Brexit completely divided the country. The "Woke" Revolution is dividing people there as much as here.

As the right wing nationalist parties gain traction we'll see how much division there is in Europe.

Of course, from my point of view, Europeans are all Socialists; it's just that some of them are also racists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

^^What utter nonsense. We're leaving Europe in the dust. Russia isn't even in the running.

As they used to say in the Soviet Union: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

Bernie would love you on his team. He thought the bread lines in Socialist Nicaragua were a good sign.

As for division, I guess you don't pay attention to British news. Brexit completely divided the country. The "Woke" Revolution is dividing people there as much as here.

As the right wing nationalist parties gain traction we'll see how much division there is in Europe.

Of course, from my point of view, Europeans are all Socialists; it's just that some of them are also racists.

---

Yes when you are only looking superficial in numbers.....but the quality of life of the nation as a whole is dropping down!You exemplify the problem, short term policy only quantity not looking at quality.....pursuit of hapinnes long gone.

from the article:

Quote:

---

Except for its 10th-place ranking for income, the US did not rank in the top 10 on measures that make up a happy country in the report, placing 12th for generosity, 37th for social support, 61st for freedom and 42nd for corruption.

---

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness???? nada.

Quote:

---

This year’s report provides sobering evidence of how addictions are causing considerable unhappiness and depression in the U.S.,” said report co-author Jeffrey Sachs. “Addictions come in many forms, from substance abuse to gambling to digital media. The compulsive pursuit of substance abuse and addictive behaviors is causing severe unhappiness.”From a policy standpoint, Sachs says the U.S. has failed to react to the issues it faces, such as obesity rates being among the highest in the world; rising rates of adolescent depression; rising age-adjusted suicide rates since the year 2000; a searing opioid epidemic; and falling overall life expectancy.

---

To parafase Shakespeare 'there is something rotten in the US state......'

And let's not forget you already have a right wing nationalist in the White House! Big walls on the border and shooting Mexicans through the knees even the AIFD in Germany is this too blunt...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49901878

See the Barr case this week....how about the trias politica? The founding fathers are turning around in their graves!

I guess the dystopia of the meritocracy has already delivered Trump.....go Bernie go!

Again, what utter nonsense.

At last count (as of February 6,2020) 90% of Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/...onal-life.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup's four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."

"The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy."

But of course, you know better how people feel, and whether their feelings have value.

Why don't you worry about your own country? Americans are doing very well, thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Again, what utter nonsense.

At last count (as of February 6,2020) 90% of Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/...onal-life.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup's four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."

"The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy."

But of course, you know better how people feel, and whether their feelings have value.

Why don't you worry about your own country? Americans are doing very well, thank you very much.

---

No I can quote fortune, not Bernies supporters magazine isn't it?
https://fortune.com/2019/03/20/u-s-u...its-ever-been/

It's based on a serious report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

see:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/

Of course all fake news.....huh.

By the way my country is on number five!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Again, what utter nonsense.

At last count (as of February 6,2020) 90% of Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/...onal-life.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup's four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."

"The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy."

But of course, you know better how people feel, and whether their feelings have value.

Why don't you worry about your own country? Americans are doing very well, thank you very much.

---

But on topic I'm convinced that a better quality of life, a good acces to public services (like schools but also hospitals) that are of excellent quality provides the best conditions for raising creativity and making use of the iq we seem to have inherited from our parents!