XPost: alt.psychology, alt.politics.british, us.politics
XPost: uk.politics.misc
From: mlwi@swipnet.se
"Andy Wainwright" skrev i
meddelandet news:k7t8ps$haa$1@dont-email.me...
> On 13/11/2012 06:36, M Winther wrote:
>> "Andy Wainwright" skrev i
>> meddelandet news:k7m9kk$kul$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Let's remember here that kids from poorer and less educated
>>> backgrounds generally will not perform well in an academic
>>> environment, however intellectually capable they might be.
>>>
>>> Middle class kids of professional parents will grow up surrounded by
>>> books and an atmosphere of learning within the household. For
>>> instance, the more educated parents are going to be able to help
>>> their
>>> children with their homework and so forth.
>>>
>>> Genetics alone in general have little effect on academic performance
>>> in comparsion to culture and class.
>>>
>>> Factor out social class and culture- it should be remembered that
>>> some
>>> cultures certainly do put a greater emphasis on education than
>>> others-
>>> and academic achievement becomes purely based on the individual
>>> concerned. Demographics are only of use as part of a strategy to
>>> find
>>> the reasons for successes and failures of various social groups.
>>>
>>> Black and Latino genetically as opposed to culturally mean nothing
>>> significant at all, that all depends on the exact tribal linages
>>> involved.
>>>
>>> Here in England, 100 years ago the same prats were saying the same
>>> about the Irish. It seems some people just seem to want to have to
>>> be
>>> above the smiths and below the joneses. Monkey dominance traits
>>> carried over into human societies the world over.
>>
>> After 10,000 years or so of an unpriviliged position in the human
>> family
>> one would expect them to have broken out of their inherited condition
>> of
>> poverty plus bad intellectual achievement. Poverty isn't a good
>> enough
>> explanation. In a class society, where the lower classes cannot
>> pursue a
>> career, the intellectual aptness in the individual can be subjugated
>> in
>> many generations. But neither today nor prior to the class society,
>> poverty cannot be such a powerful factor that it keeps people
>> intellectually inferior, generation after generation. I don't believe
>> in
>> it as a general explanatory model. The opposite explanation is
>> probably
>> better, that poverty partly depends on a low average IQ.
>>
>> M. Winther
>>
>>
>
> There's a lot of very intelligent people who are very poor.
>
> At the same time, a lot of very unintelligent people who are very
> rich.
>
> It all depends whether that individuals intelligence is useful or not
> to the handful of people who hold the great wealth and power.
>
> The bright who don't play along with the rich man's game aren't
> popular or wealthy.
>
> From what I understand of what you write, people from poor countries
> are stupid, which means by the same standard the super-rich in the
> developed world must be even more intelligent and deserve to be
> super-rich and super-dominant.
>
> I'm not against the rich, I am against the rich writing the rules to
> keep themselves in great comfort at the expense of others and the rule
> of law.
>
> Let's face it, you're on the side of the 1% against the 99%...
>
>
In the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn & Vanhanen show that
differences in national income are correlated with differences in the
average national IQ. The authors further argue that differences in
average national IQs constitute one important factor, but not the only
one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates ofeconomic
growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
M. Winther
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
