Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pblakeney

nickice wrote:

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

Possibly. A high IQ is useless if you don't know how to use it. A guy I grew up with was borderline genius at school. Put him in a real world situation and he was as thick as two short planks.

nickice

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

Possibly. A high IQ is useless if you don't know how to use it. A guy I grew up with was borderline genius at school. Put him in a real world situation and he was as thick as two short planks.

There's probably an area where he would do very well.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Ha! Expert-signal my ars*. I don't even have a biology A-level. This is basic New Scientist level stuff. The idea that poor people could genetically engineer their way out of poverty has so many holes in it it's almost less intelligent than Young's comments about various women's cleavage.

I think Toby Young's ideas are pretty crazy for a variety of reasons but a very low IQ will result in someone being unable to perform many jobs. If you're born in poverty and you have a very low IQ, your chances of getting out of your socioeconomic band are probably pretty slim.

Sure, but the idea that a very low IQ is a result of your parents' social status directly contradicts our understanding of how genetic heredity works. Supposing such a foetal intelligence test were available and those very low IQ foetuses were terminated, and after whatever period, the poorest, lowest IQ tier of society has been reduced in number to a manageable level. At that point the next tier up just becomes the new bottom of the heap and we are back where we started.

pblakeney

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

Possibly. A high IQ is useless if you don't know how to use it. A guy I grew up with was borderline genius at school. Put him in a real world situation and he was as thick as two short planks.

There's probably an area where he would do very well.

PS- He was from a poor family.

Lookyhere

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

Possibly. A high IQ is useless if you don't know how to use it. A guy I grew up with was borderline genius at school. Put him in a real world situation and he was as thick as two short planks.

There's probably an area where he would do very well.

PS- He was from a poor family.

That is where good education and great parenting come in and both of these can make up for lot of IQ ill's

Perhaps Toby Young and Bompington should look at why sporting success predominately comes from athletes who have had a Private education?
Its all about Environment.

I never thought i would read about eugenics on this particular thread.

rjsterry

Lookyhere wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

Possibly. A high IQ is useless if you don't know how to use it. A guy I grew up with was borderline genius at school. Put him in a real world situation and he was as thick as two short planks.

There's probably an area where he would do very well.

PS- He was from a poor family.

That is where good education and great parenting come in and both of these can make up for lot of IQ ill's

Perhaps Toby Young and Bompington should look at why sporting success predominately comes from athletes who have had a Private education?
Its all about Environment.

I never thought i would read about eugenics on this particular thread.

Apparently us discussing it and pointing out what utter horseshoe*t it is is shutting down debate.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Ha! Expert-signal my ars*. I don't even have a biology A-level. This is basic New Scientist level stuff. The idea that poor people could genetically engineer their way out of poverty has so many holes in it it's almost less intelligent than Young's comments about various women's cleavage.

I think Toby Young's ideas are pretty crazy for a variety of reasons but a very low IQ will result in someone being unable to perform many jobs. If you're born in poverty and you have a very low IQ, your chances of getting out of your socioeconomic band are probably pretty slim.

Sure, but the idea that a very low IQ is a result of your parents' social status directly contradicts our understanding of how genetic heredity works. Supposing such a foetal intelligence test were available and those very low IQ foetuses were terminated, and after whatever period, the poorest, lowest IQ tier of society has been reduced in number to a manageable level. At that point the next tier up just becomes the new bottom of the heap and we are back where we started.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. The argument would be that low social status could be a result of low IQ not that social status causes low IQ. And I agree about any form of genetic engineering just resulting the new 'low IQ' being higher but basic menial jobs (the kind of jobs that someone with low IQ can perform) are beginning to disappear.

nickice

Lookyhere wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

Possibly. A high IQ is useless if you don't know how to use it. A guy I grew up with was borderline genius at school. Put him in a real world situation and he was as thick as two short planks.

There's probably an area where he would do very well.

PS- He was from a poor family.

That is where good education and great parenting come in and both of these can make up for lot of IQ ill's

Perhaps Toby Young and Bompington should look at why sporting success predominately comes from athletes who have had a Private education?
Its all about Environment.

I never thought i would read about eugenics on this particular thread.

Some minority sports maybe (which makes sense as richer parents can afford to fund it) but not cycling, for example. You have to have some natural talent to be good at sports (which is going to be hereditary) just as intelligence is also partly hereditary. In nature vs nurture both are true.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Ha! Expert-signal my ars*. I don't even have a biology A-level. This is basic New Scientist level stuff. The idea that poor people could genetically engineer their way out of poverty has so many holes in it it's almost less intelligent than Young's comments about various women's cleavage.

I think Toby Young's ideas are pretty crazy for a variety of reasons but a very low IQ will result in someone being unable to perform many jobs. If you're born in poverty and you have a very low IQ, your chances of getting out of your socioeconomic band are probably pretty slim.

Sure, but the idea that a very low IQ is a result of your parents' social status directly contradicts our understanding of how genetic heredity works. Supposing such a foetal intelligence test were available and those very low IQ foetuses were terminated, and after whatever period, the poorest, lowest IQ tier of society has been reduced in number to a manageable level. At that point the next tier up just becomes the new bottom of the heap and we are back where we started.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. The argument would be that low social status could be a result of low IQ not that social status causes low IQ. And I agree about any form of genetic engineering just resulting the new 'low IQ' being higher but basic menial jobs (the kind of jobs that someone with low IQ can perform) are beginning to disappear.

Of course a lower IQ is not going to make anything easier, but it's way down the list of relevant factors unless you're at the extremes. In any case the extent to which an inherited trait is expressed is down to the environment. For Young's plan to work, you'd have to either forcibly have these genetically engineered children adopted by parents of higher social status, or somehow lift the original parents out of poverty in the first place. That's just a very complicated way of doing wealth redistribution.

rjsterry

For further reading on the kind of people Young hangs around with, Google Richard Lynn and Emil Kirkegaard.

john80

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Ha! Expert-signal my ars*. I don't even have a biology A-level. This is basic New Scientist level stuff. The idea that poor people could genetically engineer their way out of poverty has so many holes in it it's almost less intelligent than Young's comments about various women's cleavage.

I think Toby Young's ideas are pretty crazy for a variety of reasons but a very low IQ will result in someone being unable to perform many jobs. If you're born in poverty and you have a very low IQ, your chances of getting out of your socioeconomic band are probably pretty slim.

Sure, but the idea that a very low IQ is a result of your parents' social status directly contradicts our understanding of how genetic heredity works. Supposing such a foetal intelligence test were available and those very low IQ foetuses were terminated, and after whatever period, the poorest, lowest IQ tier of society has been reduced in number to a manageable level. At that point the next tier up just becomes the new bottom of the heap and we are back where we started.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. The argument would be that low social status could be a result of low IQ not that social status causes low IQ. And I agree about any form of genetic engineering just resulting the new 'low IQ' being higher but basic menial jobs (the kind of jobs that someone with low IQ can perform) are beginning to disappear.

Of course a lower IQ is not going to make anything easier, but it's way down the list of relevant factors unless you're at the extremes. In any case the extent to which an inherited trait is expressed is down to the environment. For Young's plan to work, you'd have to either forcibly have these genetically engineered children adopted by parents of higher social status, or somehow lift the original parents out of poverty in the first place. That's just a very complicated way of doing wealth redistribution.

Society for millenniums have found ways to tip the balance in favour of the status quo. What better way then to have wealthy individuals believe their off spring are better genetically than their lesser off fellow nationals. This stops the better of kids competing against the lesser well off people as generally those at the top don't want a level playing field.

If you transported a poor kid with equal intelligence to follow say David Cameron's education then he would have to do a number of things to fit in and hence thrive. He would have to speak a bit more eloquently maybe posher, have pastimes that were of some value to his peers and then have some way of funding this lifestyle. Selective schools are just one example of the middle to upper classes tipping the balance as whilst the poor maybe smart enough, are they smart enough to overcome the benefits the middle to upper classes have bestowed upon their kids such as tuition as one example.

rick_chasey

https://amp.ft.com/content/0470ad62-f62 ... ssion=true

Martin Wolf on the case against re-nationalisation of utilities.

mamba80

Not only have we an NHs that cant treat the UK s population safely, we ve now an Armed forces that is no longer able to keep up with Soviet expansion & military equipment.
https://news.sky.com/story/british-army ... s-11217869

a serving Cof S criticising the Government is un-heard off but i guess if you have 20yo tanks etc he might have a point.

Does it matter? well it might as the yanks may not be charging to the rescue, building 2 AC's (whilst having no planes!) and running down conventional forces, may prove to be a huge mistake.

rick_chasey

Army clamours for more money shocker.

rjsterry

Soviet expansion???

rick_chasey

Old habits die hard .

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Soviet expansion???

yeah never really bought into new Russia... but its a serious issue, defence of the realm and its been cut cut cut for decades now.
Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

...we ve now an Armed forces that is no longer able to keep up with Soviet expansion & military equipment...

When did we last have forces that could match Russia?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Army clamours for more money shocker.

Should be pointed out to him that we spent the money on nukes and aircraft carriers and then fire him for sedition

rolf_f

mamba80 wrote:

Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Same reason we are buying HS2 rather than using the same money on lots of small projects to benefit rail travel all over the country. Grand Projects; you can't expect the likes of Bojo to get excited about a load of Frigates can you?

BelgianBeerGeek

Rolf F wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Same reason we are buying HS2 rather than using the same money on lots of small projects to benefit rail travel all over the country. Grand Projects; you can't expect the likes of Bojo to get excited about a load of Frigates can you?

You answered your own question mamba. A carrier can only really put to sea as part of a group, so that means lots of frigates, supply ships, subs for protection etc. Lots of new ships and boats for admirals to play with while the army can go whistle.

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Soviet expansion???

yeah never really bought into new Russia... but its a serious issue, defence of the realm and its been cut cut cut for decades now.
Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Were these the AC carriers that Gordon Brown used to buy votes in Scotland and under the contracts they were cheaper to build than to cancel?

Anyway, the boots on the ground part of the army will just get smaller as drones and robots do more of any actual combat. I just hope the security services are scaling up our cyber forces as today and going forward this area is going to be much more critical to our defence and potent if we were to attack anywhere.

rick_chasey

Aircraft carrier carriers? Bloody hell they must be big boats.

rick_chasey

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/01 ... grams.html

Increasing Minimum Wages Does More to Reduce Recidivism Than Prisoner Reentry Programs

rolf_f

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Same reason we are buying HS2 rather than using the same money on lots of small projects to benefit rail travel all over the country. Grand Projects; you can't expect the likes of Bojo to get excited about a load of Frigates can you?

You answered your own question mamba. A carrier can only really put to sea as part of a group, so that means lots of frigates, supply ships, subs for protection etc. Lots of new ships and boats for admirals to play with while the army can go whistle.

No - I answered his question! And the point is we aren't getting the group. We are getting huge great aircraft carriers without the support. Presumably we rely on support from European navies. Which actually sounds pragmatic until you remember the Brexit crap.

tangled_metal

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Soviet expansion???

yeah never really bought into new Russia... but its a serious issue, defence of the realm and its been cut cut cut for decades now.
Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Ask Blair about that one afterall it was his government that signed off on the AC then promptly condemned the Harrier fleet to the scrapyard without a successor aircraft in place. Believe it or not these big projects take that long to progress.

kingstongraham

I believe it was also called the HMS Queen Elizabeth to make it extra difficult to cancel.

ballysmate

Rolf F wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Same reason we are buying HS2 rather than using the same money on lots of small projects to benefit rail travel all over the country. Grand Projects; you can't expect the likes of Bojo to get excited about a load of Frigates can you?

You answered your own question mamba. A carrier can only really put to sea as part of a group, so that means lots of frigates, supply ships, subs for protection etc. Lots of new ships and boats for admirals to play with while the army can go whistle.

No - I answered his question! And the point is we aren't getting the group. We are getting huge great aircraft carriers without the support. Presumably we rely on support from European navies. Which actually sounds pragmatic until you remember the Brexit crap.

We are leaving the EU, not NATO.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Soviet expansion???

yeah never really bought into new Russia... but its a serious issue, defence of the realm and its been cut cut cut for decades now.
Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Waging war in Europe, now THAT would be a hard Brexit.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why we ever ordered 2 new AC is beyond me unless you ve the planes and ships to look after them and we aint, any crisis in europe or any where else for that matter and we d be stuffed.

Same reason we are buying HS2 rather than using the same money on lots of small projects to benefit rail travel all over the country. Grand Projects; you can't expect the likes of Bojo to get excited about a load of Frigates can you?

You answered your own question mamba. A carrier can only really put to sea as part of a group, so that means lots of frigates, supply ships, subs for protection etc. Lots of new ships and boats for admirals to play with while the army can go whistle.

No - I answered his question! And the point is we aren't getting the group. We are getting huge great aircraft carriers without the support. Presumably we rely on support from European navies. Which actually sounds pragmatic until you remember the Brexit crap.

We are leaving the EU, not NATO.

On that point, instead of us single handedly trying to match Russia, maybe some of our esteemed European NATO partners should start pulling their weight on defence spending?