rosencrantz

How so? Nah.

Outstanding work. Marcus da Gloria Martins is the spokesman for the Munich police not the Chief of Police.

You wot mate? No, they are not. There are no underlying mechanism except for the natural forces.

Rothbard once opined that people say the most about things they know the least about. Harris is excellent when it comes to his subject, neurology and philosophy. The rest is a hit and miss.

It's a realistic view at the world. If IQ, trust, cohesion get below a certain point you are doomed both on an individually and on a societal level. If you think that having your property violated now (supposedly) by voting see what happens when immigration from the third world continues. Look at South Africa or Brazil for a sneak preview.

There is a tipping where Western Europe turns into Middle Eastern countries, and the US turns into a Southern American country. Once this has happened, any reform to the better is impossible.

Not really. If you have white kids in a dysfunctional enviroment, then seperate their sibling and put them in a good enviroment you will see what the French studies shows. Namely that the dysfunctional enviroment brings down the IQ a bit, while the good enviroment brings it up a bit. The sum of that are the 14 point IQ increase. That's because whites with a normal 100 IQ have a larger variability than blacks with a 90 IQ, when the enviromental factor is 20%.

A 20% increase or decrease is by no means a significant change in IQ.

80 IQ *1,2 (good enviroment) = 96 IQ. That's an increase of 16 and well within the limits of the studies of an IQ increase of 14. I cannot see how that contradicts the heritability.

The weak and the strong nuclear force I see the point of contention now. It helps to see the world as consisting of three layers. Layer 1 is the an actual phenomenon. Say a magnetic field or something emitting light. This is governed by Layer 2, the physical laws. They determine how layer 1 works. They are described in Layer 3, the conceptualisation of beings which is a fancy word for physics and the rest of science. Layer 1 and Layer 2 are independent of beings. If there was no life at all in the universe they would still be around, but not as concepts. It is at layer 3 that we can talk about layer 2 (or layer 1). Needless to say that our concepts of layer 2 may be wrong. The heliocentric worldview is based on a wrong interpretation of layer 1 (the sun rises and goes around) which leads to a faulty cosmology (layer 2) where the earth is at the centre of the universe and all other planets and starts revolve around it.

That's well within the 80% heritability thesis. How does that contradict Jensen?

Force is neither a concpet nor an object. It's an interaction between two objects. That interaction is objective and measurable. We give that interaction a name. That doesn't mean however, that the term itself makes it abstract. Lets say you have two persons, Peter and Paul. Peter is 170 cm tall, Paul 190. In your case, you would say that 'Paul is taller than Peter' is an abstract statement and a concept. Rather, Peter and Paul are physical objects with attributes that can be compared. Without these attributes there couldn't be a comparison. The comparison is made in abstract terms. That doesn't mean though that it isn't based in physical attributes. The problem with introducing the term 'existence' into a philosophical debate is that it does contribute new information. Since Aristotle most empirical philosophers say that existence is not a predicate. Compare the two statements: a) There is a red apple on my desk. b) There is a red apple on my desk and it exists. If you claim that existence is a predicate you have to show how b) contains more information than a).

I used 'you' as a generic term. Meaning there are other ways to study the heritability of IQ than the twin studies. It may well be that the twin studies are fraught with problems because of the small sample size and other problems. But these problems are overcome with other adoption studies. I had a look at a critique of Joseph's book and it seems that he focuses on twin studies and the way they were used to explain the aetiology of mental disorders like Schizophrenia and the like. I cannot see how this can be a refutation what I wrote when I said that adoption studies (in the vast number of cases there were no twins involved) show that IQ (not a mental disorder in my book) is heritable.

Here we go http://citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

They are 'physical mechanisms' though. Electromagnetism and gravity are two of the four forces in nature. It doesn't get more elemental than that. Is there some non-mathematical physics that I am unaware of? Also, QM at its core is unimaginable and counterintuitive. Basic experiments with polarizing filters will show you that.

That's because bakeries are public accommodations that are bound to anti-discrimination laws. Because twitter isn't a public accomodation they can have TOS as they see fit.

More like a brainfart. The next time that happens, think again and do some research. You will find that there are numerous experiments done without using torture. One of the more prominent researchers is Simon Baron-Cohen, of neurology fame.

Twitter banning people is not a free speech issue. Free speech means that the government won't interfere. Companies can do as they like. Also, see https://xkcd.com/1357/

There is another way to find out about the heritability of IQ. You don't need twins raised apart to find out. In fact, you can take adopted children and compare their socio-economic status to their biological parents and to the parents who adopted them. There are two different outcomes: - The socioeconomic status of the adopted children is similar to their biological parents. In that case, genetics is the deciding factor. - The socioeconomic status is similar to the parents who adopted. In that case, the enviroment plays a bigger role than genetics. With a bit of research you can find out which is the case.

Donald Trump gets free publicity and they show Melania next to Michelle Obama. Needless to say, both works in his favour.

Our mind has two modes of dealing with input. One is instinctive and fast, the other one is deliberative and rational. To say that our mind is built to be rational (around 18:30) leaves out neurological research of the last 20 years by Kahneman et al.

No. If a judge isn't willing to uphold the law of the land he should resign. Nobody is forced being a judge. If you don't like what you are legally obliged to do you can stop being a judge.

How so? There are stats for height, weight and what not. In addition, knowing your IQ means you can avoid making mistakes by studying something that is over your head, like science. If your IQ is around 100, don't study STEM, pick some humanities fluff.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Imagine gingers would identify as a cohesive group. They want their genes to be passed on to the next generation and not be outbred by the rest of the population. If this is to succeed, they have to create memes that: a) tell gingers only to breed with gingers b) disparage the rest of the population to breed on a faster rate than gingers If you look at social sciences through that lense it makes a lot more sense. You will eventually realize its dysfunctional for the non gingers for a good reason.