Re: Watson, and black IQ

<travisgod@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1193782018.282974.272560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 30, 5:27 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What type of heredity?

HUH?

What "type" of heredity?

You can inherit traits by means other than genetic.

I haven't looked deeply into it.

OBVIOUSLY.

I haven't because the current explanations are palpably bogus.

Have you heard of reversion to mean? Explain this in terms of fking
environment, please.

You have to look far enough back into history to see where the reversions
settle at.

No, you need do nothing of the fking kind!

How is it arrived at, then?

The onus is not on me to do such a thing. Absense of proof is not proof
of
absense. This is basic stuff.

Listen, dumb***...I have given you the answer...genetics. There is
no other mechanism by which tendencies can be passed from parent to
child anymore than there is a method by which LOOKS are passed, or
skin color, or any of a MILLION attributes inherited from parents.

You believe that anything you are ignorant of cannot exist. You think you
are like one of those cartoon characters who will only start to fall after
they notice that they have stepped over the precipice. You keep presenting
this bull*** theory, but you can't name the genes responsible. It's pure
superstition.

Jeezus christ, black kids adopted by whites DO NOT BECOME WHITE.

Specious and idiotic analogy. You can catch a cold but you can't catch a
colour. Please drink some coffee.

All of that is unsubstantiated.

WTF? I think your study just TOLD YOU THAT. The problem is that you
have NO CLUE what you are reading!

You can't be talking about me. I've repeatedly said to the effect that
correlation is not cause, variance alone tells us little, contribution is
problematic to quantify and that data taken out of context is
meaningless.

Variance can tell us a GREAT DEAL.

It says that among adequate environments, GENETICS accounts for almost
ALL of the variance!

I said that variance alone tells us little, which you refute by presenting
an example including context. It appears that you don't see the irony of
your statement.

YES, if you put poor people into a good environment, their variance
TOO would be accounted for BY GENETICS.

Would be... more soothsaying.

However, such an environment must be imposed upon the dumb; they
CANNOT do it for themselves. The intelligent self-stimulate and so,
fashion adequate environments for themselves, as individuals and as
populations.

Circular logic. The ones that don't self-stimulate will show less signs of
intelligence, due to little stimulation. The ones who self-stimulate will
show higher levels of intelligence, due to higher levels of stimulation.
The results will always be the same.

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"


.

Loading