* Ragtime^ changes topic to 'http://www.philosophy-irc.com; Presentation in progress; The Bell Curve'

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: +m

 <Ragtime^> Thank you for participating in this presentation tonight.

 <Ragtime^> This presentation will be an intermezzo.

 <Ragtime^> Or halftime entertainment, if you will.

 <Ragtime^> I am taking a break between Volume 1 of the Syntopicon and Volume 2 of The Syntopicon.

 <Ragtime^> Tonight's presentation will be a book review.

 <Ragtime^> The book is The Bell Curve, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.

 <Ragtime^> The copyright is dated 1994.

 <Ragtime^> In the space of a few years, the book has gone from being a best seller to being an unread classic.

 <Ragtime^> Now that a lot of the controversy and hyperventilating has died down, maybe we can have a more rational discussion of this book.

 <Ragtime^> In PART II we will discuss the noncontroversial part of the book. The authors coined the abbreviation SES, which stands for "socio-economic status." We will look at different commonly accepted measures of SES (such as income, educational level, and reproductive success) and how they correlate with intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> In PART III we will discuss the controversial part of the book. This is the part starting with chapter 13. The authors studied the correlation between IQ and race. The black population averages at 85. The white population averages at 100. The Asian population averages at 107.

 <Ragtime^> That the word intelligence describes something real and that it varies from person to person is a universal and ancient as any understanding about the state of being human.

 <Ragtime^> Literate cultures everywhere and throughout history have had words for saying that some people are smarter than others.

 <Ragtime^> Given the survival value of intelligence, the concept must still be older than that.

 <Ragtime^> Gossip about who in the tribe is cleverest has probably been a topic of conversation around the fire since fires, and conversation, were invented.

 <Ragtime^> Variation in intelligence became the subject of productive scientific study in the last half of the nineteenth century, stimulated, like so many other intellectual developments of that era, by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

 <Ragtime^> Darwin had asserted that the transmission of inherited intelligence was a key step in human evolution, driving our simian ancestors apart from other apes.

 <Ragtime^> Sir Francis Galton, Darwin's young cousin and already a celebrated geographer in his own right, seized on this idea and set out to demonstrate its continuing relevance by using the great families of Britain as a primary source of data.

 <Ragtime^> He presented evidence that intellectual capacity of various sorts ran in families in Hereditary Genius, published just a decade after the appearance of Origin of Species in 1859.

 <Ragtime^> So began a long and deeply controversial association between intelligence and heredity that remains with us today.

 <Ragtime^> Galton realized that he needed a precise, quantitative measure of the mental qualities that he was trying to analyze, and thus he was let to put in formal terms what most people had always taken for granted: People vary in their intellectual abilities and the differences matter, to them personally and to society.

 <Ragtime^> Working from these observations, Galton tried to devise an intelligence test as we understand the term today: a set of items probing the intellectual capacities that could be graded objectively.

 <Ragtime^> Galton had the idea that intelligence would surface in the form of sensitivity of perceptions, so he constructed tests that relied on measures of acuity of sight and hearing, sensitivity to slight pressures on the skin, and speed of reaction to stimuli.

 <Ragtime^> His tests failed, but others followed where Galton had led.

 <Ragtime^> Alfred Binet, soon developed questions that attempted to measure intelligence by measuring a person's ability to reason, draw analogies, and identify patterns.

 <Ragtime^> These tests, crude as they were by modern standards, met the key criterion that Galton's tests could not: Their results generally accorded with common understandings of high and low intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> By the end of the nineteenth century, mental tests in a for that we would recognize today were already in use throughout the British Commonwealth, the United States, much of continental Europe, and Japan.

 <Ragtime^> Then, in 1904, a for British Army officer named Charles Spearman made a conceptual and statistical breakthrough that has shaped both the development and much of the methodological controversy about mental tests ever since.

 <Ragtime^> Spearman discovered that a person who scores well on one intelligence test tends to score well on all intelligence tests.

 <Ragtime^> Galton had touched on this concept himself in 1888 and called it a correlation coefficient.

 <Ragtime^> Karl Pearson', Galton's disciple, elaborated on it further.

 * ken_away is now known as ken_

 <Ragtime^> Spearman claimed that there was a "g factor" which stood for "general intelligence."

 <Ragtime^> An IQ test's validity was determined by how closely it measured this g factor.

 <Ragtime^> For years the controversy generated by the ethical implications smoldered.

 <Ragtime^> In 1969 it hit dry kindling.

 <Ragtime^> Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist and expert on intelligence testing from the University of California at Berkeley, wrote an article in the Harvard Educational Review.

 <Ragtime^> Jensen was asked by the Review's editors why LBJ's War on Poverty, which had started out with such high hopes, turned out to have such a dismal rate of failure.

 <Ragtime^> Jensen claimed that the remedial education programs were bound to have little success because they were aimed at populations with relatively low IQ's.

 <Ragtime^> This article generated an uproar in academic circles.

 <Ragtime^> The uproar was exacerbated by William Shockley, who had won the Nobel Prize for inventing the transistor.

 <Ragtime^> Shockley proposed a plan whereby the government offer to pay people to be sterilized.

 <Ragtime^> He claimed that this would reduce the low IQ portion of the population because only people with low IQ's would take up such an offer.

 <Ragtime^> In 1971, Richard Herrnstein, one of the co-authors of The Bell Curve, stepped into this forbidden territory.

 <Ragtime^> He wrote an article in the September issue of Atlantic Monthly about the heritability of intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> Although he barely mentioned the subject of race, there were lots of critics willing to fill in the blanks for him.

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: -m

 <Ragtime^> The floor is now open for discussion.

 <Rosalind_> that's interesting..especially the part about how the tests were first developed, and the general intelligence factor..

 <kholmes> Wow. That is surprising to me. Those in my family have a wide spectrum of intelligences..

 <StopFDA> How is that philosophically important? Studies have also shown that higher testosterone people and therefore darker hair people score better on intelligence tests. This is a matter of pure science ..not philosophy.

 <Rosalind_> but I have this problem with the suggestion that low iq people should be encouraged to be sterilized.

 <Soaren> It would seem impossible for any test to measure inherited 'potential' since it would be affected by experiential 'actualization'.

 <aprilrose> I think Jerry Springer should offer to pay anyone who enters his studio to be sterilized... the bell curve would be certain to lose a standard dev or two

 <zenjite> validity in intelligence testing is not simply a matter of measuring how closely it measures "g"

 <Ragtime^> Oliver Wendall Holmes was quoted as saying "Three generations of imbeciles is enough!"

 <kholmes> Rosalind_: Bush would never pass such a law...

 <zenjite> There are historic ethical issues in associating ethnicity to intellectual factors

 <zenjite> sorry - vice versa

 -> -kholmes- Keep personalities out of this, please

 <zenjite> intellect to ethnic factors

 <Ragtime^> At least it was voluntary. The government of Sweden subjected 6,000 women to involuntary sterilization.

 <Rosalind_> kholmes, heh, because he would have to be sterilized?

 <StopFDA> keep that topic in the 80's where it belongs

 <zenjite> looking it up right now

 <aprilrose> didn't Oregon just repeal a decades old law requiring mentally or physically handicapped people to be sterilized?

 <devolve> Sweden sterilized women? I've never heard of this

 <Soaren> In other words, if Einstein had been raised in a home of illiterates, his inherited potential for genius would never have been expressed.

 <Ragtime^> StopFDA: Actually this reflects about 50 years of psychometric research.

 <StopFDA> Ragtime^, how is it philosophically important?

 <kholmes> So intelligence IS inherited, right? There's no uncertainty about it?

 <Ragtime^> StopFDA: philosophy is love of wisdom; in order to become wise, it is important to know the truth

 <mikep> my take is that intelligence is distributed according to the needs of a community - basically, the need for intelligent people is limited by the actual needs of the community

 <Rosalind_> why is intelligence, as measured by these tests, more valuable than other traits one might have?

 <zenjite> have any of you here heard the term: "culture free" tests (a misnomer)?

 <Ragtime^> the book claims that intelligence is somewhere between 40% and 80% heritable

 <kholmes> mikep: Yeah...I agree.

 <Soaren> kholmes, All mental capacities are inherited, but the actualization of inherited potential depends on experience.

 <Rosalind_> and there is a great essay by Asimov about that very thing.

 <Ragtime^> reciting the alphabet backwards would be an example of a culture-free test

 <StopFDA> Ragtime^, it's not epistemology, not metaphysics, not axiology, etc ...it's just pure scientific experiment.

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : how can it be biologically measured, I mean the inherited intelligence?

 <Ragtime^> StopFDA: do you find pure science philosophically repugnant?

 <zenjite> each population will have their strengths and weaknesses relative to their experiences. For example, there is no need for a culture in the desert to be good at sea-faring.

 <StopFDA> no but I don't find it philosophically important

 <mikep> Soaren: I take it as a fact that we do not chose our political leaders according to their IQ

 <Ragtime^> LucisPueR: mainly by keeping statistical records of population trends

 <JD``> rag I don't agree with your analysis of philosophy, nevertheless intelligence as a subject is philosophical, it has to do with perception and how that is altered in different settings

 <aprilrose> zenjite: unless they want to broaden the span of their empire...

 <kholmes> StopFDA: Its very relevant to social philosophy. Not discussing a topic because it offends us defeats the purpose of philosophy.

 <marden> rosalind good q - why is intelligence more valuable than other traits - but it's 'immaterial' to the issue of the heritability of intelligence

 <zenjite> The concept of having on measure of intelligence that will be appropriate for all people across the world, is therefore culturally elitist.

 <Rosalind_> marden, well its not immaterial to the issue of sterilization of people with low iq.

 <marden> I think that question is why people get so furious about IQ tests and ANY suggestion some people are smarter than others

 <marden> rosalind you're right on that, absolutely

 <StopFDA> Ragtime, what if one group of people is more intelligent than another? then what? What does it matter? Do you have an answer?

 <mikep> marden: yeah, I wonder that too

 <Ragtime^> I have no answers

 <marden> my point is the issue of intelligence - and how when people consider it and ANY testing for it they stray into the problem of other 'valued' qualities

 <marden> confusing the issue terribly

 <RobBeer> valued is relative to the goal :)

 <texta> having an average IQ is what most are uncomfortable about

 <Rosalind_> marden, I see. Well, I don't know that we have a good handle on what intelligence is exactly, I remain unconvinced so far.

 <RobBeer> imagine the ones with a below average IQ :)

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : there was an experiment where a psychologist statistically proved that white people were more intelligent than black one and Mexicans but not as intelligent as Japanese ones. do you agree?

 <Ragtime^> texta: as horrible as it is to admit, 50% of the population is below average

 <marden> it matters to give 'intelligence' it's proper due

 <mikep> naturally intelligent people are despised or even hated by the crowd in most cases; the crowd loves averages :)

 <kholmes> For instance, if we could gather that the average intelligence of a society is going down, what would that mean for that society?

 <RobBeer> but how many are within one 1 variance ?

 <texta> but their IQ is not as important to them

 <Soaren> marden, The capacity for intelligence is directly related to efficacy in behavior, intelligent societies are more prosperous and safe.

 <Analog Kid> I don't know, theoretically I have an IQ well above average but nevertheless I live in poverty. . .

 <marden> to pretend it's not so - some people are not smarter than others - is disastrous for everybody - especially the dumber bodies

 <JD``> mikep great comment

 <zenjite> These can and HAVE BEEN used to legitimate oppression. African Americans have been excluded from jobs because they have been assessed using the "General Aptitude Test Battery' which is not a culturally appropriate form of assessing their true intellect. That is, people recognized in the African American population as being highly intelligent are not recognized by such tests

 <marden> soaren yes

 <RobBeer> yeah they are, and they like cops between 90-100 iq, so they won't question authority :)

 <Ragtime^> LucisPuer: I addressed in the introductory remarks to Part III.

 <StopFDA> some people are more intelligent than others. So what?

 <marden> and better treaters of their less intelligent members, I aver

 <marden> I could be wrong

 <RobBeer> StopFDA, so they get the better jobs ?

 <Rosalind_> zenjite, nicely said.

 <marden> I know I'll definitely be challenged

 <LucisPueR> ok

 <StopFDA> as they should

 <RobBeer> Analog, that is not fiction :)

 <Analog Kid> I always suspected that RobBeer :D

 <aprilrose> StopFDA:so the less intelligent people get to work for the most intelligent people

 <Rosalind_> people who are more intelligent, as the term is usually meant, are not necessarily kinder or more ethically exemplary in anyway.

 <LucisPueR> JWS : how are the waves?

 <RobBeer> yeah, and a pyramid forms :)

 <RobBeer> but then the wee people rebel after a while :)

 <PiLoSoPhi> I choose to associate with those who choose to associate with me. Intelligence is only a factor if it's brought into it by one of us

 <StopFDA> aprilrose, that sounds proper to me ...but it's probably more that the intelligent people are more skilled at creating jobs who less intelligence people couldn't think up on their own. So, everyone benefits.

 <RobBeer> but then there's inertia :)

 <mikep> intelligence is the most defining factor of homo sap .. or at least that's what we like to believe

 <Eversion> there are different kinds of intelligence you can be scholastically a genius but be socially inept, is this person going to be good at his job working with those around him?

 <RobBeer> iq is pattern association

 <RobBeer> basic premise of any logical/serial thinking

 <zenjite> I have personally assessed adults and children using the Weschler Intelligence tests. Its a nice game and it can produce some interesting results for Anglo-Celtic people. But assessors need to be highly sensitive the cultural applicability of such tests and adapt them for each case. This makes it difficult for us to look at IQ across culture. It literally impossible at this stage in history for us to suitably assess cultural and SES diff

 <marden> pilosophi are you saying 'intelligence' is immaterial to you - you don't 'care' at all about it in your associates?

 <Soaren> zenjite, The far more valid indicator of racial intelligence averages is success in technological development. The IQ tests aren't necessary to evince higher average intelligence in some races over others.

 <texta> poor iq is similar to poor eyesight

 <RobBeer> which if at the base is strong "should" aggregate at the top :)

 <StopFDA> that is, the less intelligent people aren't going to create the jobs in the first place

 <marden> not just the supreme consideration - but just 'at all'

 <Rosalind_> differing kinds of intelligence is the subject of Asimov's essay on Intelligence. And he scored very high on intelligent tests, so its not a matter of sour grapes.

 <aprilrose> StopFDA: except the ones who work full-time for minimum wage, and get no benefits, and no medicaid or financial aid for school because they make 1000/year over the poverty level

 <kholmes> Has anyone here ever heard of multiple intelligences?

 <RobBeer> guess you can't be smarter than that :)

 <Analog Kid> no kholmes

 <Rosalind_> well none of us can escape that...no matter how smart..not yet anyway.

 <Analog Kid> Asimov was incredibly prolific in his writing, I adore him

 <zenjite> Soaren: technological development is a meaningless measure of intelligence for the Aboriginal Australian Population, or the people of Papua New Guinea and many others...

 <PiLoSoPhi> Intelligence doesn't mean your in a position to create jobs, hopefully you're smart enough to deal with your own hanp-ups. But I've found that isn't always the case.

 <Ragtime^> multiple intelligences still have one sum

 <Rosalind_> I like his humility.

 <StopFDA> aprilrose, that's unfortunate but they should be thankful someone was more intelligent than them so that they conceived and created a job for them that they would otherwise not have come up with on their own for being a dunce.

 <JD``> humans are fascinated with excellence, we even created scales such as the iq, is that a subtle way of denying our essence as human beings? are we trying to escape from ourselves? are you aspire to be gods?

 <Analog Kid> JD`` those are such games played by the human ego

 <zenjite> if technical development isn't important to a given culture, why would this be a useful measure of intelligence?

 <aprilrose> hehe, StopFDA I think I'll stop here

 <marden> JD come on - it's just a way of measuring 'something' we all note and consider important

 <JD``> analog this is beyond ego games

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : what is the real meaning of intelligence out of any obscure illusionary scientific approach?

 <JD``> there's an ideology behind it

 <Ragtime^> LucisPueR: I don't know.

 <Analog Kid> that's loser stuff :P

 <mikep> jobs availability is a function of demand and supply in the e job market; assuming that professional philosophers are intelligent, they neither create jobs nor are wanted to perform many jobs

 <JD``> marden on the surface perhaps

 <Soaren> kholmes, Of course there are various intelligences, just as there are variations in any other physical attribute, ex. weightlifters don't sprint well, and artists don't do math well.

 <Rosalind_> everyone who questions the merit of intelligence tests is not a pc ninny who merely got a low score is now venting on the whole world. There are actually valid criticisms of them.

 <PiLoSoPhi> But remember people, Intelligence and knowledge aren't naturally connected. One has to attain knowledge.

 <marden> JD I think 'surface' is sometimes just plain true

 <marden> often - clouds don't mean rain, they just mean 'clouds'

 <mikep> actually, an intelligent person *does not depend* on other people

 <marden> all there is to it

 <zenjite> Lucis: intelligence is general ability and knowledge.

 <kholmes> Soaren: Well...there's nothing precluding the possibility for a man who is good at all things.

 <aprilrose> mikep: good point, agenda and intelligence are required to create jobs

 <zenjite> Soaren: artists don't do math well? Where did that come from?

 <PiLoSoPhi> Intelligence and knowledge aren't always connected

 <StopFDA> I think really, variations in intelligence are so negligible across normal, healthy, humans that it's pretty much irrelevant. Anyone can integrate ideas with sufficient effort comparable with pretty much everyone else.

 <aprilrose> mikep: everyone who isn't a hermit depends on other people

 <JD``> marden heh, yes sometimes

 <aprilrose> and even hermits depend on physical elements

 <Soaren> zenjite, All cultures value attaining basic human needs like food and health, technology reflects their intellectual ability to so.

 <mikep> aprilrose: I take it that intelligent people can achieve by themselves; intelligent people can create robots, simplify or eliminate jobs etc

 <marden> the question becomes - yes - what are we (cough cough) going to DO about people with honestly less intelligence?

 <kholmes> StopFDA: I think that is a huge overstatement. Some people are pure genius, others are little better than talking chimpanzees.

 <marden> not to be cruel, but to be 'human' at our best

 <StopFDA> kholmes, I think they're just not putting forth the effort

 <aprilrose> mikep: I see, start a robot farm...

 <kholmes> Eh...I'm going to be killed for that one :)

 <Ragtime^> marden: the best first step to take is to stick around for Part IV of the presentation

 <JD``> what do you think we shoud do?

 <Soaren> zenjite, Artists think visually, mathematicians in linear rulesets.

 <Rosalind_> gosh, I wonder what kind of iq Hitler had. Seems we might need to worry about what we are going to do with people who DO do well on intelligence tests.

 <zenjite> Soaren: the Aboriginal Population of Australia (I will use their example again here), were fit and healthy when the colonials arrived. Their culture does not value progress and technical development in the same way as Western Cultures do. Technical development is meaningless and is not necessary for health and well being.

 <marden> JD I think we should the 'best thing' :)

 <mikep> Soaren: no artist ever came up w/ a realistic model of the world

 <JD``> what would that be?

 <kholmes> Personally, I think it has more to do with parenting for children achieving their potential. Yet, their potential I think is inherent in the individual.

 <CaryClaus> yeah.. that'd be like trying to make a tree out of lumber

 <StopFDA> kholmes, I sincerely think anyone off the street could come up with Einstein's ideas, for example, if he just put out the effort

 <mikep> well, it's not their job anyway, but I mean that artistic imagination rarely if ever hits the truth

 <zenjite> Soaren: Technology produces new ways for us to suffer and die. It also treats illness. However, non-technological/scientific cultures still treat illness in their won way - it works for them effectively.

 <mikep> StopFDA: hard call

 <kholmes> StopFDA: I think the presentation made the argument otherwise.

 <tvaddict> zenjite: what is a non-technological/non-scientific alternative to a heart bypass?

 <marden> stopfda really? you're joking?

 <zenjite> Stop: have you even heard of "the hierarchy of needs"?

 <marden> just enough time/effort?

 <marden> that's ALL there is to 'intelligence'?

 <StopFDA> I think effort is the greatest factor ....a little effort overpowers any natural "intelligence" so as to make any variations negligible

 <marden> no

 <Soaren> zenjite, Safety is another human need, thus defense technology is also a universal indicator of intelligence. To posit that medical and agricultural technology does not increase health and food supplies is just denial of evidence.

 <Ragtime^> zenjite: Abraham Maslow

 <marden> that's silly just plain silly

 <StopFDA> zenjite, yes

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: +m

 <Ragtime^> Although he barely mentioned the subject of race, there were lots of critics willing to fill in the blanks for him.

 <Ragtime^> In PART II we will discuss the noncontroversial part of the book. The authors coined the abbreviation SES, which stands for "socio-economic status." We will look at different commonly accepted measures of SES (such as income, educational level, and reproductive success) and how they correlate with intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> One of the main thesis statements of this book is that we are now facing the emergence of a cognitive elite.

 <Ragtime^> What accounts for the way that people with different levels of IQ end up in different occupations?

 <Ragtime^> The fashionable explanation has been education.

 <Ragtime^> People with high SAT scores get into the best colleges; people with high GRE, MCAT, or LSAT test scores get into professional and graduate schools; and the education defines the occupation.

 <Ragtime^> The SAT score becomes unimportant once the youngster has gotten into the right college or graduate school.

 <Ragtime^> Without a doubt, education is part of the explanation; physicians need a high IQ to get into medical school, but they also need to learn the material that medical school teaches before they can be physicians.

 <Ragtime^> Plenty of hollow credentialing goes on as well, if not in medicine then in other occupations, as the educational degree becomes a ticket for jobs that could be done just as well by people without the degree.

 <Ragtime^> But the relationship of cognitive ability to job performance goes beyond that.

 <Ragtime^> A smarter employee is, on the average, a more proficient employee.

 <Ragtime^> This holds true within professions:

 <Ragtime^> Lawyers with higher IQ's are also (on average) more productive than lawyers with lower IQ's.

 <Ragtime^> It holds true for skilled blue-collar jobs:

 <Ragtime^> Carpenters with high IQ's are also (on average) more productive than carpenters with lower IQ's.

 <Ragtime^> The relationship holds, although weakly, even among people in unskilled manual jobs.

 <Ragtime^> The magnitude of the relationship between cognitive ability and job performance is greater than once thought.

 <Ragtime^> A flood of new analyses during the 1980's established several points with large economic and policy implications:

 <Ragtime^> Test scores predict job performance because they measure g, Spearman's general intelligence factor, not because they identify "aptitude" for a specific job.

 <Ragtime^> Any broad test of general intelligence predicts proficiency in most common occupations, as does so more accurately than tests that are narrowly constructed around the job's specific tasks.

 <Ragtime^> The advantage conferred by IQ is long-lasting.

 <Ragtime^> Much remains to be learned, but usually the smarter employee tends to remain more productive than the less smart employee even after years on the job.

 <Ragtime^> An IQ score is a better predictor of job productivity than a job interview, reference checks, or college transcript.

 <Ragtime^> Most sweepingly important, an employer that is free to pick among applicants can realize large economic gains from hiring those with the highest IQ's.

 <Ragtime^> An economy that lets employers pick applicants with the highest IQ's is a significantly more efficient economy.

 <Ragtime^> Herein lies the policy problem:

 * \\eed0ut is now known as \\eed

 <Ragtime^> Since 1971, Congress and the Supreme Court have effectively forbidden American employers from hiring based on intelligence tests.

 <Ragtime^> How much does this policy cost the economy?

 <Ragtime^> Calculating the answer is complex, so estimates vary widely, from what one authority things was a lower-bound estimate of $80 billion in 1980 to what another authority called an upper-bound estimate of $13 billion for that year.

 <Ragtime^> Our main point has nothing to do with deciding how large the loss is or how large the gain would be if intelligence tests could be freely used for hiring.

 <Ragtime^> Rather, it is simply that intelligence itself is importantly related to job performance.

 <Ragtime^> Laws can make the economy less efficient by forbidding employers to use intelligence tests, but laws cannot make intelligence unimportant.

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: -m

 <Ragtime^> The floor is now open for discussion.

 <StopFDA> It's illegal to hire based on intelligence tests? That's absurd.

 <Rosalind_> it seems that we are still left with mardens question of what to do with those who are deemed less intelligent by these tests.

 <Soaren> Employers should be able to hire or fire people on any basis at all, governance has no place in directing the particulars of private organizations policies.

 <Ragtime^> Rosalind: work to simplify things rather than complicate them

 <CaryClaus> why do we have to be responsible for them.. are you meaning in a welfare way Rosalind_?

 <mikep> more stupid a man is, faster he moves - and it's not a joke

 <Analog Kid> why is it then in, in the US drug tests are so common for job applications yet in Canada they're so rare?

 <StopFDA> I agree ..down with external authority over the will of individuals

 <Rosalind_> I suppose they should not have a right to be employed and make a living...and won't it hurt the economy more if all those people need governmental assistance?

 <zenjite> Rag: intelligence isn't necessarily related to job performance at all. If you get screened for your job on the basis of how well you read, then those who cant read don't get jobs. Simple. Its not relevant to measure ones ability to read if the person is a carpenter or a Mechanic for instance. My brother can hardly read and he is the first person I consult to fix my car. He's no less intelligent than I am.

 <Rosalind_> Ragtime^, huh?

 <mikep> Analog: the funny thing is that businesses don't test customers for drugs :)

 <Analog Kid> interesting mikep!

 <Ragtime^> Rosalind: for instance, even a person with a low IQ is aware that OJ was guilty

 <marden> nobody's saying don't hire - just hire appropriately

 <Rosalind_> CaryClaus, I think of people I know who would not do well on iq tests for various reasons, and it seems very ethically problematic for me to think they have no right to be employed, or that anyone would suggest (as was presented) that they should be sterilized.

 <marden> don't hire for something other than capability

 <mikep> no intelligent person would work for $5.65/hr anyway

 <marden> ignoring intelligence as if it weren't a measure of capability

 <marden> not the only measure - but surely an important measure

 <Analog Kid> I do mikep unfortunately, lack of choice

 <Ragtime^> Malaysia has a lot of rubber plantations.

 <Ragtime^> For years they employed Malaysian workers harvesting rubber from the trees.

 <Ragtime^> Then they had massive Chinese immigration.

 <JD``> I wonder whether an intelligent person is better off in real life than a less intelligent person?

 <Soaren> The idea that occupational advancement correlates to intelligence, negates a very influential factor regarding job advancement, i.e. 'the bosses ego'. In every place I've worked, 'brown nosers' advance and have job security, while persons with exceptional intelligence are viewed as 'upstarts'.

 <Ragtime^> When the Chinese started to harvest rubber, the production in the plantations went up.

 <Ragtime^> The Chinese plantation workers were more intelligent and more productive.

 <Rosalind_> true Soaren...I don't know that I agree to any of the initial premises yet.

 <marden> wages aren't a 'gift' or 'privilege' or 'right' - they're information to everybody

 <\\eed> if you say that fairness can't be decreed, then just exactly what is any law? If not to safeguard civility and fairness in social exchanges, then what?

 <JD``> since we now can measure up intelligence why don't we use it to solve the problems of the world?

 <LoneEagle> JD` What method do you know of for measuring intelligence?

 <zenjite> Soaren: the brown nose factor is what some have called "EQ" emotional quotient.

 <zenjite> Soaren: the ability to know how to get what you want emotionally from people

 <JD``> lone the iq test

 <Analog Kid> as far as Malaysia goes, the rubber trees were introduced by Brits in the early 20th century

 <Soaren> zenjite, Indeed, and it is validly a form of intelligence.

 <Rosalind_> I don't think everyone should be paid the same, but I don't think children should suffer because their parents didn't have a high enough iq to be hired for a decent paying job.

 <zenjite> Soaren: but you wont find it in the "Stanford Binet" or the WAIS.

 <Ragtime^> Rosalind: do we live in a class society?

 <JD``> higher intelligence does not make the quality of life better, it just creates another class

 <mikep> Rosalind: parents fight for the future of their kids - elimination of possible competitors is just part of it

 <Rosalind_> Ragtime, well yes.

 <StopFDA> Jd, i'd have to disagree with that. The more intelligence you exercise the better you are at devising at plan for getting what you want out of life.

 <Ragtime^> The Bell Curve claims that we are now experience the emergence of a cognitive elite

 <Soaren> from the standpoint of actual 'productivity', brown nosing contribute nothing, and often results in an inept person being put in a position he cannot effectively handle.

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : what about the motivational side in intelligence, I mean you mentioned education as an important factor but what about motivation?

 <mikep> Ragtime: the bell curve was published during the dotcom frenzy

 <Ragtime^> mikep: actually it was published before the frenzy

 <Rosalind_> someone who is willing to brown nose, is also someone who is willing to take credit for someone else's work and do a lot of other underhanded things to get to the top.

 <JD``> stop true, still is intelligence all about personal gain? is it un-intelligent to channel intelligence toward solving world problems?

 <zenjite> JD: its not a class per se. But IQ is definitely a class phenomenon in my opinion. Take for example the most basic factor in IQ testing. The fact that we have to read to do it properly. Comprehension and Verbal Ability in general accounts for much of the variance in IQ test results. This means that methods to assess IQ tests draw on the idea that those who use the English language effectively are most intelligent. Its elitism.

 <StopFDA> JD, what more to have good quality of life than to maximize personal gain? (not just talking money)

 <Soaren> LucisPueR, Good point, tenacity and thoroughness, also indicate forms of intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> and by some strange coincidence, the countries with the most successful economies tend to be English speaking countries

 <JD``> zen that's my point exactly, mensa is an example

 <marden> one thing - is the society supposed to pretend there is no such thing as 'intelligence' or that it 'matters' perhaps more than other valuable qualities when it comes to some things?

 <mikep> Ragtime: that's too simplistic

 <Rosalind_> there is a book out that explains that the reason for European peoples success is largely due to natural resources, and not anything inherently better about those people.

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : Watson from a behaviorist view said that he might turn any human into either a thief or a fine person but he didn't realize that the behaviorist reinforcement is given in an easy way by the motivation and the degree of satisfaction when getting the work done or fulfilling an aim for example.

 <Indagator> however intelligent you are it can not calculate the changing variables of unforeseen circumstances in ones life we are all subject to random events that may change our or some else's life forever.

 <mikep> of course, England made a fortune selling opium to china... but that's not my def. of intelligence

 <Rosalind_> if a group lives in a region that is rich in natural resources, their chances of evolving and doing better, are obviously higher.

 <tvaddict> zenjite: perhaps IQ as measured reflects a class phenomenon. But the more basic attribute of intelligence, and the fact that some have more and others have less, is not disputable.

 <Ragtime^> Rosalind: Adam Smith said that North America and Europe are more prosperous than Africa because they have a better system of waterways.

 <Soaren> Rosalind_, Yes, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Diamond, it is a preposterous thesis that Europe has more natural resources than say Africa or South America.

 <Ragtime^> one positive byproduct of the Opium Wars was the 99 year lease for Hong Kong

 <zenjite> tv: it is disputable. Until we have valid means to assess such thing the topic is always open for dispute

 <Indagator> in those circumstances intelligence means diddly squat! how one reacts with acquired knowledge is the key

 <marden> zenjite are people supposed to ignore completely any 'popular' perceptions of 'intelligence'?

 <StopFDA> It takes exercise of intelligence to conceive of and create jobs. Those who merely go looking for a job to fill are not exercising as much intelligence...all the groundwork is laid out for them.

 <marden> if one person does lots of things more and 'better' - oh do you accept 'better' or not that either?

 <Rosalind_> Soaren, actually, I think it is traced back farther, if you look at particular groups who happened to be able to attain food more easily, and other resources, because of the geographical region they were in, it makes sense that that group would evolve more over time and be able to dominate other groups.

 <Soaren> Rosalind_, ... not to mention the impediment of attaining natural resources in a wintered region as opposed to a tropical one.

 <marden> don't you yourself note different intelligence among your friends/family- AND YET STILL love them?

 <Indagator> it means nothing if only to the wise man!

 <Rosalind_> if not, then you are saying some groups are inherently smarter and more superior due to the color of their skin, I guess.

 <tetzel> How many jobs did Newton DIRECTLY create?

 <mikep> Rosalind: it might not be the color of the skin, but it might be something else

 <Rosalind_> marden, I have no trouble noting differences between individuals...but when whole groups are said to be dumber than other groups, I would like an explanation.

 <marden> rosalind even with groups - you still need to deal with people individually

 <Ragtime^> tetzel: Stephen Hawking occupies a chair that Newton once occupied

 <StopFDA> tetzel, I don't know. He exercised his intelligence toward another end.

 <marden> so - you look for 'intelligence' rather than other indicators

 <marden> rosaling nobody's saying 'whole groups'

 <Rosalind_> egalitarianism does not dispense with all individual differences in people, it only asks that people be valued for their particular strengths.

 <Soaren> Rosalind_, Environments evolve the organisms in them, easy access to necessities provides little selective pressure to develop technology. Precisely why persons evolving in wintered areas evolved greater intelligence.

 <zenjite> marden: you can if you want to. I personally think we need to put more effort into finding valid measures of intelligence however and accept that our system is geared to exploit existing class relationships.

 <Rosalind_> marden, actually, that was part of the presentation.

 <zenjite> marden: otherwise we end up ignoring how our actions cause problems for people

 <mikep> Soaren: actually, wintered areas provide better conditions for agriculture in long run

 <marden> zenjite I don't accept exploitation as the fundamental purpose of every practice and group but yours

 <marden> I just don't

 <tetzel> StopFda: ok.. I'm questioning the statement "akes exercise of intelligence to conceive of and create jobs". While it is true that those on the lower end of the (intelligence) bell curve are unlikely to create jobs, the contrapositive is not necessarily true. (Those with the higher/highest intelligence create more jobs)

 <Ragtime^> in a cold climate, if a man abandons his mate, his family perishes; in a warm climate, a man can abandon his mate and the family will still survive

 <Rosalind_> either way, you are saying the environment is responsible for how they evolve...not any inherent quality in the group.

 <zenjite> marden: what?

 <zenjite> marden: my group?

 <mikep> Soaren: obviously, extreme conditions such as Sahara or Arctic Land did not produce anything notably intelligent

 <Soaren> mikep, When nothing grows for six months out of the year, it is necessary to evolve forethought and planning capabilities, as well as more elaborate shelter and clothing.

 <marden> zenjite I don't believe people dreamed up a thoroughly fake notion of 'intelligence' in order to measure something that doesn't exist at all in order to exploit somebody

 <StopFDA> tetzel, I agree

 <Ragtime^> some people on the higher end of the curve, such as trial lawyers, reduce the number of jobs being created

 <Soaren> mikep, It's the balance between pressure and plenty which affords success.

 <marden> ragtime utterly so - highly intelligent people can be as crummy morally as dumber people

 <mikep> Soaren: hmmm, might be

 <marden> with greater effect!

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : it is said that the people who score high in the intelligence curve fail in the creative process

 <tetzel> trial lawyers are higher on the curve? =) (that's news to me)

 <zenjite> marden: I don't believe that I said that to begin with. I do think that the notion of intelligence HAS BEEN used to exploit people by a matter of process. I've provided evidence for this already.

 <Rosalind_> isn't creativity a part of intelligence? Consider problem solving.

 <marden> zenjite everything is used to exploit people

 <marden> the issue is 'intelligence' and what to do about the differences among individuals and groups

 <ocker> assessing intelligence is a bit self limited in a way, like are we intelligent enough to know what it is?

 <tetzel> the line between high intelligence and hard work is a bit murky when you contrast two groups: physicists and surgeons

 <nyrlthtp> yeah they have tests for it. IQ or something.

 <StopFDA> one thing you don't do is instill a sense in them that they are less intelligent than others ..people have to be made aware that their ability to integrate knowledge is as unlimited as anyone else's is.

 <marden> tetzel - the evidence seems to support this notion: given equal effort - the more intelligence you have the more effect for your effort

 <Rosalind_> if we set the standards...we define it.

 <marden> I think? isn't that it ragtime?

 <zenjite> marden: intelligence, from its early stages of measurement, has been used to account for such patterns of ability across culture and within class groups. This is where the relative strengths and weaknesses need to be measured more effectively, rather than relying on current systems of IQ measurement that favor the wealthy and powerful.

 <Ragtime^> marden: that's close

 <marden> given equal effort - more intelligence is more productive/successful (I'll give on the 'successful' part)

 <marden> I don't want to push 'success' - but 'effective' or 'productive'

 <marden> it's disastrous to ignore greater effectiveness and productivity

 <Ragtime^> The Great Books are like mental weight-lifting, but a person with a lower IQ is less likely to pick one up.

 <ocker> on a good day I might be able to recognize some intelligence equivalent or lesser to my own, on a really good day I might even catch a whiff of something higher than mine, but being higher I would only be guessing of its nature

 <marden> zenjite nobody is 'resting' on current methods of iq measuring

 <zenjite> marden: productivity is a western ideal.

 <Rosalind_> I wonder how they conducted that study...how they measured productivity.

 <Soaren> marden, Indeed, the very definition of intelligence is -->Def.-INTELLIGENCE- n. 1.a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. b. The faculty of thought and reason.

 <tetzel> marden: as a logical argument, possibly.. but in the real world? You can't help but take into account Rosalind's point of 'creativity', network of peers, etc.. Is your statement making a few deductive leaps that intelligence is the main contributor of work-output, or just one of many ?

 <zenjite> marden: sure they are - and they have been for some time. We still research. However, people use IQ testing to legitimate all sorts of oppression.

 <StopFDA> a little hard work can over-achieve a brilliant couch potato any day

 <CE5^skiff> sorry it don't work that way.

 <marden> my god - you're going to fight against 'productivity'??

 <CE5^skiff> Intelligence is intelligence.

 <Soaren> marden, "acquire and APPLY"

 <ocker> that gardener chap speaks about there being 7-8 types of intelligence-certainly more than just iq tests

 <marden> tetzel I said 'an important component'

 <qwurk> Seems to be several 'intelligences' identified.. social success is but one which is measured by financial success at end of life

 <marden> a VERY important one - not the only, but people seem to fight against nothing it at all!

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: +m

 <Ragtime^> In PART III we will discuss the controversial part of the book. This is the part starting with chapter 13. The authors studied the correlation between IQ and race. The black population averages at 85. The white population averages at 100. The Asian population averages at 107.

 <Ragtime^> Despite the forbidding air that envelops the topic, ethnic differences in cognitive ability are neither surprising nor in doubt.

 <Ragtime^> Large human populations differ in many ways, both cultural and biological.

 <Ragtime^> It is not surprising that they might differ at least slightly in their cognitive characteristics.

 <Ragtime^> That they do is confirmed by the data on ethnic differences in cognitive ability from around the world.

 <Ragtime^> One message of this chapter is that such differences are real and have consequences.

 <Ragtime^> Another is that the facts are not as alarming as many people seem to fear.

 <Ragtime^> East Asians (e.g. Chinese, Japanese), whether in America or Asia, typically earn higher scores on intelligence and achievement tests than white Americans.

 <Ragtime^> The precise size of their advantage is unclear; estimates range from just a few to ten points.

 <Ragtime^> A more certain difference between the races is that East Asians have higher nonverbal intelligence than whites while being equal, or perhaps slightly lower, in verbal intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> The difference in test scores between African-Americans and European-Americans as measured in dozens of reputable studies has converged on approximately a one standard deviation difference for several decades.

 <Ragtime^> Translated into centiles, this means that the average white person tests higher than about 84 percent of the population of blacks and that the average black person tests higher than about 16 percent of the population of whites.

 <Ragtime^> The average black and white differ in IQ at every level of socioeconomic status (SES), but they differ more at high levels of SES than at low levels.

 <Ragtime^> Attempts to explain the difference in terms of test bias have failed.

 <Ragtime^> The tests have approximately equal predictive force for whites and blacks.

 <Ragtime^> In the past few decades, the gap between blacks and whites narrowed by perhaps three IQ points.

 <Ragtime^> The narrowing appears to have mainly caused by a shrinking number of very low scores in the black population rather than an increasing number of high scores.

 <Ragtime^> Improvements in the economic circumstances of blacks, in the quality of the schools they attend, in better public health, and perhaps also diminishing racism may be narrowing the gap.

 <Ragtime^> The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved.

 <Ragtime^> The universality of the contrast in nonverbal and verbal skills between East Asians and European whites suggests, without quite proving, genetic roots.

 <Ragtime^> Another line of evidence pointing toward a genetic factor in cognitive ethnic differences is that blacks and whites differ most on the tests that are the best measures of g, or general intelligence.

 <Ragtime^> On the other hand, the scores on even highly g-loaded tests can be influenced to some extent by changing environmental factors over the course of a decade or less.

 <Ragtime^> Beyond that, some social scientists have challenged the premise that intelligence tests have the same meaning for people who live in different cultural settings or whose forebears had very different histories.

 <Ragtime^> Nothing seems more fearsome to many commentators than the possibility that ethnic and race differences have any genetic component at all.

 <Ragtime^> This belief is a fundamental error.

 <Ragtime^> Even if the differences between races were entirely genetic (which they surely are not), it should make no practical difference in how individuals deal with each other.

 <Ragtime^> The real danger is that the elite wisdom on ethnic differences-that such differences cannot exist-will shift to opposite and equally unjustified extremes.

 <Ragtime^> Open and informed discussion is the one certain way to protect society from the dangers of one extreme view or the other.

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: -m

 <Ragtime^> The floor is now open for discussion.

 <LucisPueR> ragtime : the development of intelligence is also related with needs as well, so it's no rare that people from some cultures, in order to survive, has developed a higher degree of intelligence.

 <Rosalind_> well I actually found that part of the presentation to be the least controversial.

 <ocker> ragtime why do people attached to the human genome project say that ethnicity and race are not genetically determinable due to eons of mixing?

 <Ragtime^> ocker: I don't know.

 <ocker> ragtime, and what of cultural influences, for example the Asian family work ethic?

 <tetzel> Ragtime: What if they contrasted the IQ of 80 year old whites with 25 year old blacks? Would they assume a genetic difference existed and blacks are therefore smarter? (IQ and age are negatively correlated)

 <Ragtime^> ocker: I imagine studying 3-4 hours a night does have an influence.

 <Ragtime^> tetzel: I don't know.

 <zenjite> Rag: I don't mean to knock your POV here, but the current theories on intelligence testing do not support your view that tests "have approximately equal predictive force for whites and blacks". Currently, you will find that psychological assessors are trained to assess intelligence with a culturally sensitive frame of reference. It is plainly recognized throughout the literature that standardized measures of intelligence are culturally load

 <ocker> ragtime, apparently there is a general rise in iq over all children in this recent generation, largely attributed to media exposure, signage etc

 <StopFDA> Rosalind_, well that may be because it's not physically possible given your biology ..that's why I said physically possible

 <noss_> if IQ has a strong genetic component, then mixed race "blacks" should have an intermediate IQ between whites and blacks

 <marden> THIS is where I think my point is most important - 'intelligence' is not the ONLY (possibly not the most!) important quality in a person

 <marden> I think the refusal to allow groups might differ IS a measure of a person's snobbish belief NOTHING matters but intelligence

 <zenjite> A good text on this and ANY intelligence testing/psych testing is "The handbook of psychological assessment 3rd ed" Groth Marnot 1999John WIley and Sons Inc

 <Soaren> Another major factor missed by those claiming the IQ differences are only cultural, is the fact that genes and culture evolve reciprocally. A population living in a technological culture for 1000's of years, have had a greater selective pressure toward evolving intelligence. Culture generate habitats which alter evolutionary direction.

 <Rosalind_> I don't think so marden, I think it is a reflection and a concern over the fact that those with higher intelligence do in fact seem to be valued more in society.

 <tetzel> ocker: another IMPORTANT point, that DISCOUNTS RACE and IQ.. If you took the non-scaled score of blacks of today, and compared them to whites of 1700, blacks would score higher. Culture can change in 300 years, but genes change much slowly.

 <zenjite> Soaren: boloney!

 <marden> many people believe lower intelligence is almost 'smelly' - gosh, who could STAND it!

 <ocker> stop, I agree , use it or lose it and first ponder why you want to, what is worthy

 <zenjite> Soaren: the influence of technology has made it less necessary for human being to have to think for themselves

 <marden> ignoring the likely greater importance of moral character, or 'humor' or 'creativity' or lovableness

 <boboroshi> marden: ...'intelligence' is not the ONLY (possibly not the most!) important quality in a person <== the importance of any particular quality will be in its usefulness to another. inasmuch as one wishes to be useful, these are character virtues.

 <marden> gee - I think LOTS of qualities might be just as or more important - but maybe not in 'jobs'

 <Ragtime^> zenjite: I think GIGO still applies

 <qwurk> Blacks in comparable learning environments over time rise to equal results of Caucasians

 <zenjite> technology created labor saving devices so that we can have more recreation time

 <marden> bobo the importance depends on the situation/task - yes

 <marden> for friends - intelligence isn't as important to me as in a doctor, say

 <zenjite> Rag: GIGO?

 <marden> or my plane pilot

 <Soaren> zenjite, ... and more time to think.

 <Ragtime^> GIGO = garbage in, garbage out

 <zenjite> Rag: yes - my point to you Soaren

 <Soaren> zenjite, You can't write a book if you're hunting and gathering all day just to subsist.

 <zenjite> Soaren: writing books doesn't make one intelligent

 <Ragtime^> Melville wrote while he was whaling to subsist.

 <GodHormon> no race have lived separately for more than 15,000 years. There's been intermingling between races since the dawn of time. The most isolated race in the world are the Australian aborigines.

 <Rosalind_> marden, I think its more than snobbish if it contributes to economic hardships for people.

 <boboroshi> marden, doctor: sure, assisted by intelligence. pilot: definitely improved with intelligence.

 <kholmez`> As I understand it, the study in The Bell Curve is correlative. Even if, on average, blacks are less intelligent than whites, and whites are less intelligence than Asians, it would be folly to jump to the conclusion that it is related to the black, white, or Asian "genes" whichever ones they might be.

 <marden> rosalind but HOW is it contributing to that? by 'ignoring' intelligence in entrance exams or jobs?

 <JWSurf> kholmez`: your words are jewels

 <Soaren> zenjite, The ability to record and exchange information increases a populations intelligence. Cultures which depend on more complex technologies, favor the success of the intelligent.

 <tetzel> kholmez: correlative yes. I'm sure marketing and advertising executives could also some up with a correlative study of driving BMWs versus Cameros. Informative and entertaining, yes.... meaningful, no

 <GodHormon> people appreciate intelligence, but they don't know exactly what they are cherishing.

 <ocker> kholmez, I think a lot of it is due to culture, which can have generational effects and that eventually it will turn out to be nature+nurture+ choice

 <Rosalind_> marden, yes, I think so.

 <marden> ragtime - how is 'cultural differences' handled in the debate?

 <JFK_Ghost> There is the human being that has many different races... It is very odd but what race you are does not really show what type of person you are... What really matters is what books you read and study!!!... Figure it out!!

 <marden> JFK but - if it takes one group (generally) longer to read the same number of books, or to do the same amount of work....

 <marden> that's the thing

 <marden> equal effort - yet different output

 <marden> whatever the output

 <Ragtime^> marden: There is an author Dinesh D'Sousa who takes a position midway between the position of The Bell Curve and Hillary Clinton.

 <marden> even among criminals - they surely don't ignore that difference?

 <Ragtime^> D'Sousa claims that there is behavioral poverty as well as economic poverty.

 <marden> dsousa is generally claimed by the right I believe?

 <marden> lol

 <JFK_Ghost> marden what's very odd is a group of slow readers suddenly ends up with a very fast reader all the time

 <noss_> dsouza is a conservative

 <GodHormon> Rosalind, technology has created ways to learn things in a faster way.

 <marden> JFK not odd - nonono - everybody on both sides of the debate bear in mind the distinction between predictions for groups and for individuals

 <GodHormon> for example, interactive math games

 <marden> nobody forgets that predicting for individuals is impossible

 <marden> that's a red herring

 <Ragtime^> D'Sousa claims that in the black community there are two main threads of thinking--the W.E.B Dubois thread and the Booker T. Washington thread.

 <zenjite> God: the technology didn't create them - the culture created the technology

 <JFK_Ghost> there is a psychology side to humanity and what race you are is not a factor in that and yet many humans still think it is

 <Ragtime^> Martin Luther King followed the Washington thread; Jesse Jackson follows the Dubois thread.

 <zenjite> God: people created those things and used technological methods. Those same things can be put into practice without high technology in a culturally appropriate manner.

 <ocker> ragtime, maybe singing the blues is a different kind of intelligence not always available to the intellectual approach?

 <Ragtime^> yes, or playing ragtime

 <zenjite> ocker: yes!

 <StopFDA> Rosalind_, ok don't worry about it then ..I'm not a stalker though

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, I'd say that the tests rate Orientals higher than Europeans, when their race's actual accomplishments and standards of living are generally far lower than Europeans, evinces the IQ tests are still quite flawed. In other words the theory doesn't correlate to the experimental results.

 <marden> ocker singing the blues - 'creative' intelligence - is allowed - but it does nobody any good to pretend it's the same thing when you're looking for a doctor I think

 <zenjite> but maybe one day we will recognize things such as "musical vibe" as a legitimate and reliable measure of intellect

 <Ragtime^> Soaren: Maybe that is evidence that Western culture is superior, since people at a genetic disadvantage are more affluent.

 <marden> when they test for 'blues singing' - do they pretend there's no such thing as 'talent' or 'musicality' just because - oh you can fill it in

 <JWSurf> Speaking as a neuroscientist, I think it is silly to measure people by a single number like IQ. Brains and people are too complex to quantify on such a simple scale. Its like kids in 7th grade measuring penis length to decide who is a great lover.

 <tetzel> "<Soaren> Ragtime^, I'd say that the tests rate Orientals higher than Europeans, when their race's actual accomplishments and standards of living are generally far lower than Europeans, evinces the IQ tests are still quite flawed. In other words the theory doesn't correlate to the experimental results" <-- what a LOADED statement! look at William James Sidhis IQ 250+

 <marden> when I need a doctor - I don't care if he's a brilliant blues singer

 <marden> I need a doctor

 <ocker> marden, I have seen sssstandard type I q tests that could have had various 'correct' solutions to the creative eye-I think they are culturally biased in that way

 <Rosalind_> I think humor is a good indication of intelligence, but apparently I am alone in this.

 <Ragtime^> Rosalind: the authors of The Bell Curve discuss the relation between intelligence and humor

 <marden> you can tell by my lack of humor

 <Soaren> tetzel, Claims about racial intelligence are not determined by one individual.

 <GodHormon> Asians may score higher because of family dynamics and a deep-seated identity as for example the Jews.

 <zenjite> God: family dynamics and identity aren't measured in IQ

 <tetzel> the best dr. is the guy who knows the limits of his intelligence, and refers your to a better doc!

 <GodHormon> zenjite, they're not mature, but both can predict success

 <ocker> tetzel, yes a realistic humility is intelligent :)

 <GodHormon> zenjite, they're not measure, but both can predict success

 <marden> but it's gone beyond that to outright war against 'noticing' ANY difference in intelligence, or allowing ANY testing or even attempt

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, Cultures alter habitats which alter selective pressures, it's not 'culture versus inheritance', it's 'culture and inheritance' influencing habitat and evolutionary direction. Too many conjunctive factors are seen as oppositions.

 <zenjite> God: I would guess that the information supplied showing Asiatic people to have higher IQ isn't consistent with what I've read. I find that hard to believe, given the masses of research demonstrating that White Middle-Class Males from Western Backgrounds perform best on the WAIS and Stanford Binet

 <noss_> Godhormon, that isn't the first time I have heard those two groups compared. in fact they are similar in that college admissions must seek to quota their numbers to avoid overfilling the class with them

 <zenjite> God: success is an ideal

 <marden> Asians are a good case study - not ONLY 'intelligent' - but crimini! - good effort!

 <marden> very hard working

 <JFK_Ghost> True or False: The human being has many different races but they are all equal in mental abilities.

 <marden> JFK it looks like it might be oh maybe kind of just a lil bit in one tiny area: 'false'

 <zenjite> Ask someone from Japan what they share in common with someone from Malaysia.

 <boboroshi> +they are all equal in mental abilities.

 <zenjite> This Asian thing is bollocks

 <boboroshi> how do you know?

 <boboroshi> by what standard of equality?

 <Ragtime^> first generation Chinese in San Francisco worked in sweat shops sending their kids to Stanford. Some ethnic groups, however, seem to never get better, generation after generation.

 <ocker> the question seems to be 'what is the best way to test intelligence-I think culturally biased tests of a singular mode of intelligence is like playing without a full deck, a sandwich short of a picnic even

 <zenjite> Rag: right - so do you blame the ethnic group or do you blame the society?

 <marden> to even 'think' there might be some differences between groups of people is to condemn me to nazism

 <zenjite> Rag: do these people prosper in their own culture - yes/

 <Ragtime^> zenjite: probably the group since we are all living in the same society

 <boboroshi> eugenics and euthanasia are next, marden.

 <Soaren> -->Example of 'gene/culture coevolution': say the adaptive learned behavior of building a superior boat leads a Mediterranean coastal culture being more successful than surrounding cultures in trade, thus establishing a culture dominated by mariners. ...

 <Soaren> ... Within this culture selective pressures would shift toward favoring persons who possess inherent traits for easily practicing and acquiring the skills for being successful mariners. ...

 <marden> cultural bias is a problem - surely testers of IQ have not ignored it, or been 'unaware' of it, or have attempted to correct for it?

 <ocker> I read that the musical ability/appreciation area is linked to mathematical ability

 <zenjite> Rag: that's your choice. Choosing to blame the ethnic group leaves you powerless to do anything about the issue

 <Soaren> ... People who were genetically predisposed toward seasickness, were allergic to the materials boats were built from, had a hard time learning to swim with good coordination, had poor balance, etc. would be less successful in a culture of mariners. ...

 <Soaren> ... This adaption to new habitats is aided by the fact that genes vary with every generation.

 <noss_> college admissions admit people on the basis of standardized scores, which make for a heterogeneous class. an interesting suggestion might be to admit applicants on IQ score basis

 <GodHormon> ocker--- it well could be linked to math, but it includes abilities like harmony , rhythm , and pitch

 <kholmes> noss_: They would most likely fail. That has to be why the tests were instituted in the first place.

 <\\eed> if you do something repeatedly, eventually you will show improvement - they say "you are 'gifted'" , and I say, anyone can learn to drive can't they? or walk? Depends on how much energy you put into improving.

 <noss_> kholmes : fail to produce a more homogenous class, or fail in practice ?

 <kholmes> noss_: Fail their classes :)

 <marden> part of the reason for tests is to contain the discipline the candidates for entry seek to join - not to exclude needlessly good candidates

 <marden> for the benefit of the candidates - not just the discipline

 <zenjite> I would just like everyone here who believes that we can blame intellect on ethnic factors to read some psych assessment journals on the topic at their local University Library. The arguments being presented in favor of blaming ethnicity are dated.

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: +m

 <Ragtime^> Open and informed discussion is the one certain way to protect society from the dangers of one extreme view or the other.

 <Ragtime^> The thesis of this section may be summarized quickly:

 <Ragtime^> As of the end of the twentieth century, the United States is run by rules that are congenial to people with high IQ's and that make life more difficult for everyone else.

 <Ragtime^> This is true in the areas of criminal justice, marriage and divorce, welfare and tax policy, and business law, among others.

 <Ragtime^> It is true of rules that have been intended to help ordinary people-rules that govern schooling, medical practice, the labeling of goods, to pick some examples.

 <Ragtime^> It has happened not because the cognitive elite consciously usurped the writing of the rules but because of the cognitive stratification described throughout the book.

 <Ragtime^> The trend has affected not just those at the low end of the cognitive distribution but just about everybody who is not part of the cognitive and economic elites.

 <Ragtime^> The systems have been crated, bit by bit, over decades, by people who think that complicated, sophisticated operationalizations of fairness, justice, and right and wrong are ethically superior to simple, black-and-white versions.

 <Ragtime^> The cognitive elite may not be satisfied with these systems as they stand at any given point, but however they may reform them, the systems are sure to become more complex.

 <Ragtime^> Additionally, complex systems are precisely the ones that give the cognitive elite the greatest competitive advantage.

 <Ragtime^> Deciphering complexity is one of the things that cognitive ability is most directly good for.

 <Ragtime^> First come all the rules that make life more difficult for people who are trying to navigate everyday life.

 <Ragtime^> In looking for examples, the 1040 income tax form is such an easy target that it need only be mentioned to make the point.

 <Ragtime^> But the same complications and confusion apply to a single woman with children seeking government assistance or a person who is trying to open a dry-cleaning shop.

 <Ragtime^> As the cognitive elite busily goes about making the world a better place, it is not so important to them that they are complicating ordinary lives.

 <Ragtime^> It's not so complicated to them.

 <Ragtime^> This also applies to living a virtuous life.

 <Ragtime^> We start with the supposition that almost everyone is capable of being a morally autonomous human being most of the time and given suitable circumstances.

 <Ragtime^> Political scientist James Q. Wilson has put this case eloquently in The Moral Sense, calling on a wide range of social science findings to support an old but lately unfashionable truth:

 <Ragtime^> Human beings are in general capable of deciding between right and wrong.

 <Ragtime^> This does not mean, however, that everyone is capable of deciding between right and wrong with the same sophistication and nuances.

 <Ragtime^> The difference between people of low cognitive ability and the rest of society may be put in terms of a metaphor:

 <Ragtime^> Everyone has a moral compass, but some of those compasses are more susceptible to magnetic storms than others.

 <Ragtime^> Imagine living in a society where the rules about crime are simple and the consequences are equally simple.

 <Ragtime^> "Crime" consists of a few obviously wrong acts: assault, rape, murder, robbery, theft, trespass, destruction of another's property, fraud.

 <Ragtime^> Someone who commits a crime is probably caught-and almost certainly punished.

 <Ragtime^> The punishment almost certainly hurts (it is meaningful).

 <Ragtime^> Punishment follows arrest quickly, within a matter of days or weeks.

 <Ragtime^> The members of the society subscribe to the under lying codes of conduct with enthusiasm and near unanimity.

 <Ragtime^> They teach and enforce them.

 <Ragtime^> Living in such a world, the moral compass shows simple, easily understood directions.

 <Ragtime^> North is north, south is south, right is right, wrong is wrong.

 <Ragtime^> Now imagine that all the rules are made more complicated.

 <Ragtime^> The number of acts defined as crimes has multiplied, so that many things that are crimes are not nearly as obviously "wrong" as something like robbery or assault.

 <Ragtime^> The link between moral transgression and committing crime is made harder to understand.

 <Ragtime^> Fewer crimes lead to an arrest.

 <Ragtime^> Fewer arrests lead to prosecution.

 <Ragtime^> Many times, the prosecutions are not for something the accused person did but for an offense that the defense lawyer and the prosecutor agreed upon.

 <Ragtime^> Many times, people who are prosecuted are let off, though everyone (including the accused) acknowledges that the person was guilty.

 <Ragtime^> When people are convicted, the consequences have no apparent connection to how much harm they have done.

 <Ragtime^> These events are typically spread out over months and sometimes years.

 <Ragtime^> The top it all off, even the "wrongness" of the basic crimes is called into question.

 <Ragtime^> The top it all off, even the "wrongness" of the basic crimes is called into question.

 <Ragtime^> At every level, it becomes fashionable to point out the complexities of moral decision, and all the ways in which things that might seem "wrong" at first glance are really "right" when properly analyzed.

 * Ragtime^ sets mode: -m

 <Ragtime^> The floor is now open for discussion.

 <marden> ragtime wonderful

 <marden> good opening: <Ragtime^> Open and informed discussion is the one certain way to protect society from the dangers of one extreme view or the other.

 <marden> there's a  notion these days that some very things oughtn't to be discussed in polite company

 <\\eed> good post

 <marden> but - #Philosophy isn't polite company is it? :)!

 <marden> good show ragtime

 <marden> good ending

 <Ragtime^> 10 Q

 <StopFDA> All crime amounts to violating the rights of another via physical force or fraud. Anything else is not a crime, but pseudodocrime manufactured by the State.

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, I think positing that tax laws and criminal laws are derived from a discrepancy in intelligence, confuses their complexity as a result of intelligence with the ulterior motive of intentionally masking corruption with obfuscation.

 <marden> I like the complexity issue - busily complicating things - leaving the 'less fortunates' (the dopes/most people) out in the cold

 <Ragtime^> StopFDA: if you start using words with excessive syllables, you are creating another magnetic storm

 <marden> StopfDA the 'state' in this case is 'busy intelligence elite'!

 <Ragtime^> marden: Yes, in fact that goes to the very purpose of this channel.

 <marden> talking about the untalkable, the unhearable,  the unmemorable

 <\\eed> so basically, simple is better, and complex is someone trying to pull the wool over your eyes - and penalties should compare to the amount of harm that was done, and should hurt?

 <\\eed> I can accept that just dandy

 <Ragtime^> Is this channel a place for people to obtain wisdom, or is it a place for people to quibble over chickens and eggs and flaunt their egos.

 <marden> ragtime it's a place to talk turkey

 <noss_> ragtime-depends on the person of course

 <marden> show your cards, put up or shut up

 <JFK_Ghost> you get more from reading a book

 <\\eed> it was once thought that if the world were able to connect and communicate over vast distances instantaneously, that wisdom could be shared exponentially faster than ever before - I don't know what anyone else in here thinks about it.

 <marden> \\eed I think the majority of the visitors to #philosophy believe (and wish to believe) that

 <\\eed> personally, I think IRC is what the internet pretends to be, but in reality is only commerce

 <quertyd> I always thought that wisdom comes from experiencing something

 <kholmes> Ragtime^: In the pursuit of wisdom, sometimes our egos get in the way. The more wiser among us learn from this.

 <marden> commerce is a wonderful thing people do

 <Ragtime^> \\eed: well, like a computer network, the exponential growth is accompanied by an exponential growth of packet collisions

 <marden> especially the commerce of knowledge and belief

 <marden> commerce is not a sin, it's not a bad word- trade

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, the efforts to 'idiot proof' America has ironically led to overcomplicating life for the intelligent. Ex. coffee maker automatically shuts off in two hours so idiot won't burn down his house, leaving those intelligent enough to check appliances before going out, having to reset the coffee maker every 2 hrs ....

 <quertyd> doesn't wisdom come from experience?

 <Ad_Hoc> how do you "idiot proof" America? have everyone leave?

 <Ragtime^> or how about those annoying popups on word processor programs?

 <kholmes> Soaren: That's just common sense :)

 <\\eed> I do think that basing all public facilities and services on the lowest common denominator may have room for improvement, or even overhaul...

 <marden> you first realize people with less than stellar intelligence are just a 'human' and 'worthy' and likely 'plain smart' as eggheads

 <S|ye> this channel is a good bet for wisdom

 <\\eed> quertyd: ok, if you want to sidetrack the issue and argue over the difference between knowledge and wisdom.....

 <Ragtime^> People in this channel often denigrate religious people as being weak or defective.

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: they're just as human...they're not just as smart, and they're just as worth of or for what?

 <marden> adhoc 'we' are just as human ... lolol

 <kholmes>  Some of the folks here have insight that I think makes me more wise.

 <marden> the world doesn't belong only to eggheads

 <StopFDA> well I do think that religion plays on a psychological weakness

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: perhaps it should.

 <marden> they got their problems too, they could clan their own backyards before worrying about the dummies

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, ... another complication to the intelligent in 'idiot proofing' America. Computer programs which slow users down with 3 or four 'reminder' or 'confirmation' dialog boxes, and printers which reset options to what the 'average' print involves after already selecting otherwise.

 <Ragtime^> Soaren: but that is just a minor inconvenience, not an insurmountable barrier

 <marden> adhoc you think eggheads SHOULD be 'idiot proofing' things?

 <Ad_Hoc> I think the world would be a lot better off if the "eggheads" were in charge

 <marden> running peoples lives 'for their own good'?

 <marden> ad hoc - they ARE in charge!

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: no. let the idiots screw up. They'll learn.

 <marden> have you looked?

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: no, they're not.

 <marden> you're confusing 'intelligence' with 'goodness'

 <marden> with 'perfection'

 <Ad_Hoc> no, I'm not.

 <Ad_Hoc> no again

 <kholmes> The thing is, no matter how idiot proof things become, there will always be a breed of idiots who aren't trapped by the net.

 <JFK_Ghost> what are we talking about here now?

 <GodHormon> I think intelligence is inextricable related with being good

 <marden> I'm always worried when people start divvying themselves up into 'the smarts' and 'dummies' - they never put themselves in the 'dummy 'group!

 <Ragtime^> GodHormom: are intelligent people morally superior?

 <Ad_Hoc> maybe that's because those who know they'd be in the dummy group don't do it.

 * marden stands all alone in her dunce-group - waiting to be 'saved' and complexified to within an inch of her life by the likes of ad-hoc

 <Ragtime^> "The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing." -- Socrates

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: you are assuming motives and actions which are not in question

 <Soaren> GodHormon, Correctly discerning the actuality of things requires intelligence, yet intelligence is merely a capability requiring direction toward fulfilling human needs before it can be applied ethically. Intelligence can be a means to ethical behavior; but intelligence alone, without wisdom's moral guidance, can achieve as much harm as benefit.

 <marden> it's what the nazis believed -'because' they were 'smarter' they were 'more moral'

 <GodHormon> I wouldn't say they're superior, i'd say they're just more conscious of consequences.

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: no, it's not.

 <Ad_Hoc> GodHormon: that assumes that morality is consequential.

 <kholmes> Ragtime^: I think that Socrates would agree with Ad Hoc here, actually.

 <kholmes> Ragtime^: "The unexamined life is not worth living." --Socrates

 <marden> godhormon I think it's fair to say a person could have 'superior intelligence' without saying he's 'worth more' as a human, or 'more moral', or 'better'

 <marden> he's just 'smarter' that's all

 <marden> why is this so hard for people?

 <Ragtime^> are intelligent people better at introspection?

 <Ad_Hoc> smarter IS better

 <kholmes> \\eed: I though The Bell Curve argued that intelligence was hereditary.

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, Do any of the IQ tests measure 'introspectivity'?

 <StopFDA> ability for intelligence can be built one neuron at a time

 <Ragtime^> Arthur Schopenhauer said that the less intelligent a life form is, the more likely it is to reproduce.

 <kholmes> Ragtime^: I think so, actually.

 <\\eed> kholmes: I guess that means you have to agree with the makers of the bell curve - I'd bet they are not much different than the folks who came up with IQ tests

 <Ragtime^> Soaren: I don't know.

 <\\eed> kholmes: I've never heard this to be the case though

 <Soaren> Ragtime^, Since most IQ tests are timed, they negate introspection.

 <marden> intelligence is a noted quality humans value. rightly so - it's very helpful to continued existence. but there are other equally valued qualities - moral character, industriousness, lovability

 <\\eed> kholmes: I even know of several exceptions to that if it be the case

 <GodHormon> Soaren>-- Wisdom moral guidance arises from experience. The more you know, the less harm you should do to others. If you know a lot of psychology , history , sociology, or countries.... you might be a good moral person.

 <kholmes> \\eed: Well...they seem to have had evidence. I'd have to read it to have an opinion of it though.

 <marden> we don't value only intelligence and depending on the situation it may not matter to us much at all

 <marden> the complexity of the legal system is a good point ragtime

 <Ad_Hoc> intelligence is the single most important quality of a human being

 <Adler^> ragtime: That is because intelligent people find mental pleasure more satisfying whereas the poor and unintelligent lean towards the physical pleasures.

 <marden> adhoc how surprising you should say that

 <marden> when you marry - you'll only marry for intelligence, eh?

 <quertyd> I don't understand what makes someone 'smart'?...is it how much you can learn in a certain amount of time...how well you do in school?

 <Ad_Hoc> how surprising you disagree

 <LucisPueR> ad_hoc : in human beings? if humans are basically rational animals, can't other animas have a degree of intelligence as well?

 <JFK_Ghost> If you could say a smart person may appear to be a moral person but is really just a real smart person that knows what he's doing and not doing... what does that tell you?

 <Ad_Hoc> I will marry for compatibility, as most do

 <marden> she could be a screechingwhiningshrew and ugly as sin - but all that matters to you is her 'brain'

 <Ad_Hoc> LucisPueR: yes, of course

 <quertyd> I think there's no limit to what you can learn

 <StopFDA> What's a moral person? Being rational is more important than being so-called moral.

 <kholmes> What's the difference between marrying for intelligence and marrying for physical attraction?

 <Ad_Hoc> marden: once again, you attempt to put words into my mouth. TRY to argue what I've said, not something you've made up for me.

 <LucisPueR> stop : any rational animal is moral

 <ionized> kholmes, I hope for both

 <GodHormon> you can't be moral without rationality behind it to back it up

 <SkepVegan> The argument is that morality, being defined quite definitively as what one SHOULD do is in all cases compatible with rationality.

 <Soaren> GodHormon, I agree moral guidance is facilitated by experience, but 'breadth' of that experience is necessary, to afford an overview of factors tempering behavior. Hitler and Stalin were obviously 'intelligent' in certain directions, but their narrow-mindedness prevented moral insight.

 <Ragtime^> kholmes: if you marry for physical attraction, you will end up like Mr. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice. When your wife's looks fade, you are left with nothing.

 <\\eed> one can be an irrational intelligent person

 <marden> \\eed yes - when I look for friends - 1. I look for people who like me 2. lovability 3. trustability 4. good smelling......17 or so -smartness

 <JFK_Ghost> Can you teach retards morals to follow because they are retarded and don't ever get what it's about?

 <Ad_Hoc> \\eed is correct there

 <LucisPueR> stop : isnīt that a judgment?

 <StopFDA> SkepVegan, well if moral is nothing more than being rational, that is, doing what works, then that sounds good to me

 <Ragtime^> The Bell Curve said that people with low IQ's are less likely to vote.

 <Ad_Hoc> several serial killers have been found to be extremely intelligent

 <kholmes> Ragtime^: That makes a lot of sense, and is probably why we have that elite of cognitives...

 <Ad_Hoc> Bundy springs to mind...so does sutcliffe

 <SkepVegan> StopFDA: I am not sure what you mean by "doing what works." Fixing a watch can be "doing what works" but it is in no way related to morality.

 <Soaren> Intelligence is the capacity to cognize actions which achieve goals, while wisdom is possessing the knowledge of which goals are worth achieving. 'Worth' is a value judgment, thus wisdom correlates to ethics.

 <zeebee> what is the discussion about

 <StopFDA> SkepVegan, usually thought when people speak of morality they are speaking of limits to what is allowable even if it works to get what is aimed for.

 <\\eed> Soaren: wow, never thought I would hear that in this room

 <\\eed> Soaren: I think I'll agree just because I like it

 <SkepVegan> StopFDA: I'm not sure what you mean. That is supremely unclear.

 <Soaren> \\eed, ... and since the Greek word 'philosophy' literally means 'love of wisdom', it follows that philosophy's aim is ethics.

 <kholmes> I think ethics is inherently technical, and the ability to make the right decisions favors the more intelligent.

 <zeebee> how does philosophy equate with human morality

 <Ad_Hoc> Soaren: you assume that wisdom is related to morality; I would argue that

 <StopFDA> SkepVegan, moral limits. Morality says that the end doesn't justify the means. Even if something is rational toward a desired aim, it should not be done because it is somehow "immoral."

 <Ragtime^> zeebee: morality is what distinguishes a philosopher from a sophist

 <JFK_Ghost> I say morals is what you try to teach the dumb people that don't get what it's really about

 <Soaren> Ad_Hoc, -->Def.-WISDOM-n. 1. Understanding of what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

 <Ad_Hoc> StopFDA: no, morality doesn't say that the end doesn't justify the means.

 <SkepVegan> StopFDA: That is a very incomplete view of what morality is concerned with.

 <Soaren> Ad_Hoc, -->Def.-ETHIC-1.a. A set of principles of right conduct.

 <Ad_Hoc> Soaren: none of which has anything to do with morality

 <Soaren> Ad_Hoc, 2. -ETHICS- The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

 <zeebee> I agree that philosophy should be about ethics and morals BUT it is more than that

 <GodHormon> Soaren-- Value originates from what you cognize, with the knowledge you possess, and you can conclude that what you value needs to be upheld by facts about life.

 <StopFDA> SkepVegan, I think it's exactly what morality is concerned with

 <JFK_Ghost> If you know more about life you really get it and are not following morals at all... you just really see what you're doing or not doing

 <SkepVegan> StopFDA: Then you are wrong, it's that simple. Your statement assumes "desired aims" are moral aims when often that is simply not the case.

 <Soaren> GodHormon, Yes, ought derives from is.

 <quertyd> what makes something moral or immoral?

 <GodHormon> every time you're making an intelligent decision you have to tell what's better , so you have to value alternatives.

 <\\eed> most desires are "good" , most generally it is the method that is questionable

 <JFK_Ghost> The person that states they are a moral person is not seeing how they are saying they are dumb there

 <Ad_Hoc> Soaren: yes, ethics is a BRANCH of philosophy, concerned with morals.

 <Ad_Hoc> whether or not the end justifies the means is a moral question - it is not ANSWERED by morality.

 <Soaren> morality derives from what fulfills human needs.

 <Soaren> Ad_Hoc, Human purposes derive from human needs, thus the ultimate purpose in striving to know what is actual (metaphysics), or how to avoid misconceiving actuality (epistemology), is to inform us of which behaviors are correct for fulfilling our needs (ethics).

 <Adler^> Soaren: Would that mean that demands for fulfillment of wants far in excess of needs would be immoral?

 <Soaren> Adler^, Greed would be immoral, Humans are social beings, fulfilling their needs through the cumulative contributions of individual members of society by incorporating diverse talents and insights for reciprocal mutual benefit.

 <Adler^> Soaren: Would that mean that demands for fulfillment of wants far in excess of needs would be immoral?

 <Soaren> Adler^, Security involves having extra resources for hard times, as long as they are acquired by reciprocally beneficial transactions, wealth is not immoral.

 <LucisPueR> morality is something implicit in humans but the fulfillment of needs is restricted only by the subjective perception of the individual to evaluate when is enough