Whats rustling your jimmies?

Control

Control

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,999
14,209
Hoss said:
OK that rustles me too. The worst part is this cunt thinks she's good at customer service. Maybe instead of press 1 for english we can press 1 to have your problem solved, press 2 to be seen and heard. 2 transfers you to ole colleen's voicemail.
Click to expand...
What people really want is for shit to just work so we never have to encounter customer service at all.
 
  • 2Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 2 users
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
48,953
107,053
What the fuck is this shit?

IMG_20251107_191921448~2.jpg
 
lgarthy

lgarthy

<Silver Donator>
3,416
14,966
  • Watson's Comments: In a 2007 interview and a subsequent 2019 documentary, Watson stated that he was "inherently gloomy" about Africa's prospects because Western policies assumed Black people had the same intelligence as white people, an idea he claimed was not supported by testing data. He explicitly stated he believed the difference in IQ scores between races was genetic. He made other offensive and controversial comments about women and gay people as well.
  • Scientific Consensus: There is a broad consensus across the biological and social sciences that race is a social construct, not a meaningful biological or genetic classification of human variation. Mainstream scientific evidence indicates that variations in IQ scores between different populations are primarily due to environmental factors such as access to education, nutrition, and systemic racism, not inherent genetic differences.
  • Consequences and Condemnation: His remarks sparked international outrage and led to severe professional consequences. The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), where he had served as director and chancellor for decades, stripped him of his honorary titles and severed all remaining ties with him, calling his opinions "reprehensible," "unsubstantiated," and "reckless".
  • Legacy: While Watson is highly regarded for his co-discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, his later years were tarnished by his promotion of these debunked racist ideas, making him a pariah in much of the scientific community




  • because he wouldn’t understand SCIENCE…
 
RobXIII

RobXIII

Urinal Cake Consumption King
<Gold Donor>
4,201
3,007
lgarthy said:
  • Watson's Comments: In a 2007 interview and a subsequent 2019 documentary, Watson stated that he was "inherently gloomy" about Africa's prospects because Western policies assumed Black people had the same intelligence as white people, an idea he claimed was not supported by testing data. He explicitly stated he believed the difference in IQ scores between races was genetic. He made other offensive and controversial comments about women and gay people as well.
  • Scientific Consensus: There is a broad consensus across the biological and social sciences that race is a social construct, not a meaningful biological or genetic classification of human variation. Mainstream scientific evidence indicates that variations in IQ scores between different populations are primarily due to environmental factors such as access to education, nutrition, and systemic racism, not inherent genetic differences.
  • Consequences and Condemnation: His remarks sparked international outrage and led to severe professional consequences. The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), where he had served as director and chancellor for decades, stripped him of his honorary titles and severed all remaining ties with him, calling his opinions "reprehensible," "unsubstantiated," and "reckless".
  • Legacy: While Watson is highly regarded for his co-discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, his later years were tarnished by his promotion of these debunked racist ideas, making him a pariah in much of the scientific community




  • because he wouldn’t understand SCIENCE…
Click to expand...

Hmm. What did the numbers say? I was taught in basic High School SCIENCE that experiments should be done in large numbers, controlling for variables as much as possible. Provide the same education / opportunities to everyone, hold everyone just as accountable in class (respect the teacher, pay attention, etc), and see if he was right or wrong. Should be easy to prove in a genuine experiment right?
 
lgarthy

lgarthy

<Silver Donator>
3,416
14,966
RobXIII said:
Hmm. What did the numbers say? I was taught in basic High School SCIENCE that experiments should be done in large numbers, controlling for variables as much as possible. Provide the same education / opportunities to everyone, hold everyone just as accountable in class (respect the teacher, pay attention, etc), and see if he was right or wrong. Should be easy to prove in a genuine experiment right?
Click to expand...
It's been done. Repeatedly. Remember "The Bell Curve?" But the often quoted example of two plants--- one given light and nutrition and the other starved, is a flawed model, because no matter how much you feed either plant, they will reach an genetically derived limit. No "Jack & the Beanstalk" no matter how much nutrition you provide. Yup. It's a dicey and divisive premise. There is a limit--- it is known in genetics and psychology as the Reaction Range.

  • Definition: The reaction range is the genetically determined limits (upper and lower) for a specific trait. For a given genotype (genetic makeup), the phenotype (observable trait, like IQ score or height) will fall somewhere within this range, depending on the quality of the environment.
  • The Limit: Just as a plant's genetic code determines the maximum possible height it can achieve, a person's genetic makeup determines the maximum cognitive potential they can reach. No amount of perfect schooling, nutrition, or cognitive training will push their IQ score past their individual genetic ceiling.
That is the question that is uncomfortable to address. How influenced are genetic markers on "the human condition" regardless of environment? It's been tested extensively, and answered both ways-- yet intuitively we know what certain traits are bound to genetics. 99% of humans are alike in our genome. But that is a huge data set with a lot of "garbage" in it. Yet we know from animal models that genetics can dictate behaviors regardless of environment. It's just uncomfortable to admit that we KNOW what we are getting (for the most part) when we adopt a Golden Retriever as opposed to a German Shepard (and yes, I could have use more provocative breeds in that example-- but there is no need to).

There is absolutely a genetic upper limit to traits. It's an inconvenient truth. It's okay to pass down height and eye color, but not social traits.
 
lgarthy

lgarthy

<Silver Donator>
3,416
14,966
Any animal rescue folks know the impact of genes. There are certain breeds that you cannot mix with other rescue animals: The strong prey drives in certain breeds, such as Greyhounds, Terriers, and some hunting breeds like the Weimaraners, for example-- they cannot (and should not) be housed/sheltered with other breeds (or felines). And yes, I am ready to hear about the Siberian Husky that sleeps every night with the kitty cat... It's just not the norm nor the push from their genes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.