“Frank E. DiSalle…super genius.”

Toooot!

“I just love the way that rolls out: Frank E. DiSalle…Super Genius!”

Toooot! TOOOOT! BAROOOMMM!!!

(…th-th-th-that’s all, folks!)

Shocker.

wise ass

I’d rather be a wise ass than a dumbass.

And are you really saying that a lot of google hits for a search term means that the search term is true proposition???

No. I want to hear from you directly what you think is credible evidence for your assertion.

so carelessly impugn the intelligence of your idealogical opposition

I do not carelessly do it. I impugn the intelligence of those who oppose my views when they do so for stupid reasons, and/or support stupid people. There are intelligent conservatives out there that I disagree with, but that I do not feel are fucking morons like yourself. But they seem to be few and far between.

You are a poor logician Mambo, given to brash rhetorical statements that don’t bear up to close examination at all.

I think that your opinion on my logic skills is analogous to Courtney Love criticizing Beethoven’s musical talents.

But to conclude that you are smarter in effect than every Palin supporter is a stretch that can’t be made with a straight face.

First off, I said “virtually” every Palin supporter. There remains a small chance that there is one or two out there – but functionally, they are nonexistent. Secondly, if you support that woman in any kind of political capacity, you are almost BY DEFINITION a dumb person. It’s like using a word to define itself – “Palin supporter” is synonymous with “idiot”. I am a lot of things, AO, but I am not stupid – so I have that going for me over them.

and those numbers, I might add, are largely pulled out of Jensen’s lily white a$$. He had no scientific basis for that assertion whatsoever, other than his own prejudiced observations.

More recent studies have shown that, while individual genetics does play a factor, there is no indication that genetics among populations is a significant indicator of IQ:

Some (i.e., Jensen) have argued that this estimate is as high as .75, meaning that fully 75% of all IQ variances can be attributed to genetic differences. Studies have shown this to be high, except in monozygotic (MZ) twins raised together. These twins share the same exact genotype. In this case, the correlation was as high as .88. In the study of MZ twins raised apart, the correlation was as high as .75. In contrast, Dizygotic twins, who share 50% of their genes on average, had a correlation factor of .53 when growing up together and .46 when raised separately. This seems to indicate that similarity of a genetic component has a direct influence on IQ scores. At the very least, it indicates a much higher influence than that of non-related children having a correlation of just .17 (Loehlin, Lindzey, and Spuhler, 1975).

Ah, but there’s more:

Another study shows that home environment also plays a significant role. This study, conducted by R.A. Hanson, indicated that Stanford-Binet IQ scores were greatly associated to many environmental factors that remain stable, in the home. These variables associated to intelligence in each age period are: ‘freedom to engage in verbal expression, language teaching, parental involvement, and provision of language development models’ (Hanson, 1975). Cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language. Such home variables as quality of language models available to the child, opportunities for enlarging vocabulary through appropriate language usage, and opportunities for language practice were also found to be important factors showing a ‘.69 correlation between total ratings of the home environment and general intelligence’ (Hanson).

In other words, in non-related children, genetic similarities (i.e., “race”) account for only 17% of IQ variation, while home environment can account for up to 69% of the variation.

(And, AO, note the sources… see it’s not that hard to find sourced material on the intarweb. You might try it some time.)

:Jensen’s most controversial work, published in February 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review, was titled “How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement?” It concluded, among other things, that Head Start programs designed to boost African-American IQ scores had failed, and that this was likely never to be remedied, largely because, in Jensen’s estimation, heritability of IQ was over 0.7 of the within-race IQ variability, and the 0.3 left over was due to non-shared environmental influences.

The work became one of – if not the most – cited papers in the history of psychological testing and intelligence research.[7] It sparked a huge academic controversy. Although his paper was widely cited, a random selection of 60 of these citations revealed that 29 of the papers were direct rebuttals or criticisms of Jensen’s arguments, 8 cited the paper as an “example of controversy,” 8 used it as a background reference. Only 15 citations of Jensen’s paper were in any way supportive of his theories, and 7 of these 15 were only in relation to minor points.[8]

Link

“Give me some evidence. I’m ready to learn. Bring it on.”

As first stated it’s a controversial subject, tainted perhaps by the desires of many of those participating in the discussion. But it is easy to find information about the subject AS YOU WELL KNOW.

You’ve requested evidence, let me help you on your search. Go to google, hit advanced search. Type in intelligence in the exact wording box. Then type in race in the must contain box. Boom, over 29 million results. You can start there.

When you and others of your idealogical ilk so carelessly impugn the intelligence of your idealogical opposition you are just asking for observations and assertations that pop your bubble and jerk your chain. Pot meet kettle, etc. You are a poor logician Mambo, given to brash rhetorical statements that don’t bear up to close examination at all. Look at this little gem;

” I know that I am smarter than you, and I also know that I am smarter than virtually every Palin supporter.

But that’s not everybody. That’s what, 30% of Americans?

Yes, I am comfortable with that assessment.”

You may or may not be smarter than Frank. You’ve given damn little evidence to prove it but it remains plausible. But to conclude that you are smarter in effect than every Palin supporter is a stretch that can’t be made with a straight face.

LOL, your comfort is no measure of your credibility.

I for one, am not aware of this work you speak of and would benefit from your providing some links. If it is credible, I will understand it, being of white european stock and all.

Jesus, AO, this kind of thinking has been discredited since World War Two.

AO’s been disproven on this by at least one or two commenters here and a vast body of actual* genetic and social research. But, you know, other than that, totally common knowledge.

*actual, in this case, meaning NOT shit slopped around the right wing blog circuit and funded by one of the usual clowns.

No. Fuck you, AO. If you’re going to come in here and start making outlandish statements, back them up. And despite what you may say or think, it’s not blatantly obvious nor common knowledge that there are significant differences in intelligence between races. So put up or shut up, troll.

Your accussations that I am just throwing it out there are, like most of what you assert, bullshit.

Um, no. You just casually threw it out there, like throwing a pack of wolves a steakbone. Let me quote you:

The question of varying intelligence levels between different races is the epitome of politically incorrect. That doesn’t mean the question doesn’t have an answer. The top three are ashkenazi jews, asians, and garden variety white europeans. I expect the usual blather from the peanut gallery, do try and bring a few facts with you.

Yes, that’s just about the definition of “throwing it out there”, you stupid hack. Give me some evidence. I’m ready to learn. Bring it on.

When dealing with what is in most cases common knowledge one doesn’t use foot notes in casual conversation.

Not common knowledge, at ALL. If you want verification of this, you should go to Time Square in NYC and start asking people at random. Do tell what happens.

You on the other hand are prone to making all sorts of rash remarks regarding other’s intelligence rhat are purely the subjective viewpoint of a closed mind that don’t hold up to the simplest examination.

See, there’s a key difference between us. I call people on this board idiots when they are acting like idiots. Coming on here and saying stupid shit is a sure-fire way for me to jump to the conclusion that you are a grade-A moron. And you have corroborated that observation over, and over, and over again. There are very few things that you say that don’t read like they are coming from someone with a subpar IQ. Idiot.

But then again you are a hack.

The irony is so thick, I could cut it with a knife.

I will only congratulate you on being the first person to successfully turn douchebaggery into an art form.

Try and wrap your head around that one.

If you really want access to the science surrounding the topic, which you don’t, google it yourself. The politically correct come up with all sorts of compelling reasons why it isn’t so yet in the end does it really matter? As Forest Gump’s mother put it so succintly “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Your accussations that I am just throwing it out there are, like most of what you assert, bullshit. When dealing with what is in most cases common knowledge one doesn’t use foot notes in casual conversation. What I mentioned regarding racial intelligence is hardly a secret or hard to find. You on the other hand are prone to making all sorts of rash remarks regarding other’s intelligence rhat are purely the subjective viewpoint of a closed mind that don’t hold up to the simplest examination.
But then again you are a hack.