SpaceAlien Post time: 2012-1-17 06:36
Your reaction to the article was similar to virtually all anglos: such topics offend them: truth of ...
Your kind of bigoted racism has no place in any respectable internet forum. You don't even understand the topic you are commenting about, have little understanding of it, and then make generic claims of ignorance against an entire race.
questioner Post time: 2012-1-17 10:29
This is not "mainstream science". It is acollection of theorists with a mechanistic, quantitative bi ...
Everything you said is false, but I do agree that Euros should not believe in intelligence: Euros should believe everything you just said: but China should believe in the truth, which is what the article I posted is.
So by all means, continue to preach your scientifically false cultural determinism to the Euros, but not to China. And for the record, I am not Han Chinese. I just have a lot of respect for them.
PopularStar Post time: 2012-1-17 10:55
I've come across a research on more than a hundred kids. The purpose of the research is that, a scie ...
The Euros believe that intelligence is based on environment, not genetics, and I am glad that this is what they believe: the Euros are too irresponsible to know the truth about the human brain, so it's better they not know the truth. Look at what happened the last time the Euros tried to play with brains: they decided to form the Third Reich and kill the world.
This post was edited by questioner at 2012-1-17 15:48
SpaceAlien Post time: 2012-1-17 14:10
Everything you said is false, but I do agree that Euros should not believe in intelligence: Euros ...
You have not addressed a single issue raised in my post. That is because you do not understand it, just like you do not understand the material you posted in the original post. And no, "Europeans" do not believe intelligence is environmental (nor does your cut-and-paste OP state that it is entirely genetic). There is a wide divergence of thought on this subject in intelligence theory, drawing on a wide range of data and argumentation. Two common approaches are domain-specific and domain general, the former positing that intelligence is expressed through divergent cognitive processes - and perhaps modules in the brain. For my liking there is insufficient evidence for the existence of modules. What are you thoughts on that debate? Further what is a legitimate cognitive function worthy of the label "intelligence" is at least in part culturally defined - and mediated via the dominant values of any given society. Intuitive intelligence, for example, is neither acknowledged nor tested in any of the IQ test I have seen. It falls off the cultural radar because it is not valued or understood. But visual-spatial intelligence has skyrocketed - rising about 27.5 points between 1947-2002 in the USA alone - because it is culturally valued and employed. That is why Raven's Matrices is a standard sub-test used in IQ testing.
How much of the literature on intelligence have you read, by the way?
And making the Third Reich a synonym for "European" is as legitimate as equating the barbarous WW2 Japan with "Asian".
Let's face it, you are just not smart enough to understand the things you are writing about. But that's not a reflection of your genetics; although it's possible your cultural upbringing may have something to do with it.
I have been told by the moderator of this forum that my ideas are racist and I will be banned if I continue to be racist. So, I retract all my opinions of the topic of human intelligence and instead agree with you now: there is no such thing as human intelligence or intelligence genes: rather, it's the environment that plays 100% in how smart any individual or group of people are. Thank you for your time.