Rich kids brighter than poor kids shocker!

[Bagpuss]

(If there was ever a more convincing proof required than gaging what SB believes to be true and picking the opposite, I've yet to encounter it).

Harsh but fair

[shaunbhoy]

How do we get these conclusions when scientists themselves can't make their mind up on what constitutes intelligence, or where it comes from vis-a-vis genetics, environment, sheer chance I'm not sure.

Not all of us need squabbling "scientists" to draw all of our conclusions for us snaw. Some of us are capable of independent deduction based on a lifetime of experiences. Only shallow fools need everything laid out for them before being able to come up with opinions of their own. Leaders and followers mate, you really need to up your game and stop waiting for others to tell you how to think. You can define "intelligence" in any way that suits your own low opinion of your humble background, or quote some isolated anecdotal instances to further salve your conscience if you feel you must. The bottom line however is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, 2 bright people are statistically much more likely to sire bright children than Wayne and Waynetta are. Trying to drag environmental factors and social background into it is a little irrelevant as they simply serve to exacerbate the discrepancies that already exist at birth. What someone does with the superior grey matter they have been blessed with is, of course, an entirely different matter. That seems to be where you are getting confused. Hope this helps clear things up a bit for you. Oh, and a word to the wise. Steer clear of Baggy's misguided input. That is only a short step away from agreeing with AtW, and we all know the social stigma THAT brings.

[snaw]

Some tips.

Learn to use paragraphs.

When you quote something, it's best to remember that you quoted it when other people reference it. It doesn't really help your argument.

We live in a scientific age. Generally speaking scientists start out without the answer and then provide one based on observation. Not the other way round. Clearly there is the scientific concept, then there's the SB concept. I'm thinking that if we'd stuck with the SB concept the world would still be flat and the sun revolve around us.

If you insist on making statements of fact, it's usually a good idea to back up said fact with some hard proof. Sorry, but your "lifetime of experiences" doesn't really cut it with the wider world.

And finally, while we're at it. I may poke fun at AtW, but I'd acknowledge that's he's bright, in his own asperger's idiot savant kind of way. You on the other hand have never shown any signs of this intelligence you seem to know so much about. Stick to rolling smileys, it suits your level of contribution.

HTH.

[Churchill]

Not all of us need squabbling "scientists" to draw all of our conclusions for us snaw. Some of us are capable of independent deduction based on a lifetime of experiences. Only shallow fools need everything laid out for them before being able to come up with opinions of their own. Leaders and followers mate, you really need to up your game and stop waiting for others to tell you how to think. You can define "intelligence" in any way that suits your own low opinion of your humble background, or quote some isolated anecdotal instances to further salve your conscience if you feel you must. The bottom line however is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, 2 bright people are statistically much more likely to sire bright children than Wayne and Waynetta are. Trying to drag environmental factors and social background into it is a little irrelevant as they simply serve to exacerbate the discrepancies that already exist at birth. What someone does with the superior grey matter they have been blessed with is, of course, an entirely different matter. That seems to be where you are getting confused. Hope this helps clear things up a bit for you. Oh, and a word to the wise. Steer clear of Baggy's misguided input. That is only a short step away from agreeing with AtW, and we all know the social stigma THAT brings.

Oi fuqwit, punctuation!

[shaunbhoy]

Oi fuqwit, punctuation!

Stick to molesting squirrels and posting stuff that gets you banned numbnuts!
It would have sailed over your head anyway.

[Churchill]

Stick to molesting squirrels and posting stuff that gets you banned numbnuts!
It would have sailed over your head anyway.

I prefer picking on you, squirrels are far too intelligent!

Btw, any truth in the rumour that although your job can be performed remotely, they prefer to send you out on site as they can't stand you being in the office?

[shaunbhoy]

Blah blah blah.....ooops working class chip falls off shoulder...blah blah blah....
We live in a scientific age. Generally speaking scientists start out without the answer and then provide one based on observation.

You pays your money and you choose the "scientists" that agree with your own gut feelings snaw. Would these be the same sort of scientists that predicted an Ice Age 30 years ago that have now revamped their figures to show Global Warming then?
This whole debate hinges on rather wooly definitions relating to what constitutes "bright". You are constantly attempting to deflect it away from that.
We all know people from underprivileged backgrounds that have come good, but to do so they have punched above their weight given the tools they were blessed with rather than anything else. Similarly many privileged people feel far less inclined to put huge effort in to bettering themselves because they see little need, being already in the comfort zone they seek materially.
That disinclination does not negate the fact that were they to put their mind to it they could not outperform those from lesser intellectual backgrounds.
It obviously offends your working class sensibilities to have these truths aired so publicly, but there you have it.
I don't feel fettered by the same PC constraints that seem to hamper you, sorry if that rankles.

PS Just for you and all my other fans.........

[shaunbhoy]

I prefer picking on you, squirrels are far too intelligent!

For you obviously.

Btw, any truth in the rumour that although your job can be performed remotely, they prefer to send you out on site as they can't stand you being in the office?

No truth in either contention. Talking of people not being able to stand you, how many divorces is that now then?

[speling bee]

wooly

woolly

Or perhaps your parents came from the wrong side of the tracks?

[DodgyAgent]

How do we get these conclusions when scientists themselves can't make their mind up on what constitutes intelligence, or where it comes from vis-a-vis genetics, environment, sheer chance I'm not sure.

If we're saying middle class people are more intelligent then afraid I have to disagree, I'm met plenty of braindead middle class people in my time (Circles I seem to mingle in these days). In fact there's a whole newspaper devoted to them (The daily mail). They just go to better schools. Go to countries where educational standards aren;t as defined by your background as the UK and you'll find that the discrepancies are far less than in the UK.

Even the researchers report quoted comes to the same conclusions - but hey SB on the CUK board says differently so it must be true (If there was ever a more convincing proof required than gaging what SB believes to be true and picking the opposite, I've yet to encounter it).

Whilst you are correct your exceptions do not disprove the rule. What the report is saying is that intelligent people tend to come from better off families. It is not saying "therefore all poor people are stupid". Your reactions reveal more about your own anxieties and prejudices (as to be fair do the other reactions that try to be serious) than they do about the theory itself.