TexasCHLforum.com

Lesson - don't mess with a VMI grad... They'll break out the linear regression scatter plot on you.

Okay, coming out of the closet, I was a liberal arts major. I earned a B.A., philosophy/history, from UPenn '73. I was a sixth generation legacy admission(matrilinear, yes it makes a difference).
I was then and remain today a liberal in the classical sense, though evolved. What most today consider liberalism is really Marxism/Socialism. True conservatives still hold women as chattel, bathe irregularly, and are tribal in their definition of society.

Edited to add:
How a hick college, cowboy, butter bar(dad) successfully courted a Mainline debutante(mom) during wartime would make a great movie!

Abraham wrote:Leftist professors are Saul Alinsky acolytes...making certain students remain unschooled in American history and hateful toward Capitalism and the Constitution.

A four year degree from almost any university is laughable.

Those who earn degrees in science aren't exposed as much, but sadly, they're still exposed to some of this poison.

A bigger culprit than Alinsky is a "historian" by the name of Howard Zinn, who wrote "A People's History Of The United States". That book has been accepted as THE standard for teaching American History to college students, and it was written by a man who completely, down to his bones, hated the United States of America.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Abraham wrote:Leftist professors are Saul Alinsky acolytes...making certain students remain unschooled in American history and hateful toward Capitalism and the Constitution.

A four year degree from almost any university is laughable.

Those who earn degrees in science aren't exposed as much, but sadly, they're still exposed to some of this poison.

A bigger culprit than Alinsky is a "historian" by the name of Howard Zinn, who wrote "A People's History Of The United States". That book has been accepted as THE standard for teaching American History to college students, and it was written by a man who completely, down to his bones, hated the United States of America.

Ah, Zinn. Even the flaming red socialists at Harvard and Stanford agree that his book is revisionist claptrap. It's not a textbook, it's a trade book. At best it's been used by half a dozen universities as survey material, not as a textbook. Not a single state in the Union lists it as an approved textbook for secondary education.
Yes, I know that Sen. Santorum made some political hay with his remarks at the NRA national meetings last year. They were, regrettably, not strictly accurate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -history-/

VMI77,

No, I haven't seen the movie "Infinity".

I tried to get it through Netflix and it's not currently available.

Shockley came up with the idea that those with IQ's below 100, should voluntarily be sterilized.

It was his conclusion that people with IQ's below 100 that reproduce will eventually dumb down (I'm paraphrasing) the population at large.

This idea among others created quite a negative stir...

You can decide where these guys fall in the scale of intelligence. I suspect some of the current generation are not far from these two, for the same reason.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/tw ... your-head/

Dadtodabone wrote:Okay, coming out of the closet, I was a liberal arts major. I earned a B.A., philosophy/history, from UPenn '73. I was a sixth generation legacy admission(matrilinear, yes it makes a difference).
I was then and remain today a liberal in the classical sense, though evolved. What most today consider liberalism is really Marxism/Socialism. True conservatives still hold women as chattel, bathe irregularly, and are tribal in their definition of society.

Edited to add:
How a hick college, cowboy, butter bar(dad) successfully courted a Mainline debutante(mom) during wartime would make a great movie!

Well, for one thing, even in the world of liberal arts, there were still standards in 73. I suspect a good many of today's college students couldn't have gotten into UPenn in 1969. And you're absolutely right, the Marxists have polluted the word liberal, and they're still trading off the label with some of those who are old enough to remember what the word used to mean and haven't keep up with current events.

puma guy wrote:You can decide where these guys fall in the scale of intelligence. I suspect some of the current generation are not far from these two, for the same reason.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/tw ... your-head/

I don't think the scale goes that low.

puma guy wrote:You can decide where these guys fall in the scale of intelligence. I suspect some of the current generation are not far from these two, for the same reason.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/tw ... your-head/

From the same wiki link on IQ above....someone can be pretty far down the scale and still be functional.

Type of work that can be accomplished:

Adults can harvest vegetables, repair furniture IQ 60
Adults can do domestic work IQ 50

Abraham wrote:VMI77,

No, I haven't seen the movie "Infinity".

I tried to get it through Netflix and it's not currently available.

Shockley came up with the idea that those with IQ's below 100, should voluntarily be sterilized.

It was his conclusion that people with IQ's below 100 that reproduce will eventually dumb down (I'm paraphrasing) the population at large.

This idea among others created quite a negative stir...

I haven't kept up with the research...but my youngest and I discussed that very topic a few years ago. It seems logical superficially but I don't think the evidence has shown it actually happening. It assumes that two low IQ parents will produce low IQ off spring, and while I haven't studied the matter, I don't think that's the case. If that were true, on the flip side it would mean that to produce an Einstein both parents would have to have 165 IQs.

In reality, two parents with 165 IQs are more likely to produce a child with an IQ in the 120 to 130 range. For the most part it seems IQs tend to revert to the mean so that two parents with 70 IQs are likely to produce a child in the 80-100 range and two parents with 130 IQs are likely to produce a child in the 120 to 100 range. When you look at the distribution of IQ it's clear that both very low and very high IQs are large outliers, so the chances of any two high IQ parents producing a genius or any two low IQ parents producing a very low IQ child are very small.

Realistically, if Shockley was right then given the current population of the planet we'd already be observing the effect. I think the reality is that regardless of intellect, most human beings aren't logical and do what they rightly or wrongly perceive to be in their self-interest rather than what is "smart." I think we can see that in where this country is today. The Founders created a system that tended to align "smart" with self-interest. For over 100 years the progressives have been attempting to replace that system with one that subordinates "smart" to their self-interest.

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:You can decide where these guys fall in the scale of intelligence. I suspect some of the current generation are not far from these two, for the same reason.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/tw ... your-head/

I don't think the scale goes that low.

Maybe the equivalent of a geranium?

About 4 years ago I wanted my daughter who was 12 years old at the time to read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn during the summer . She checked them out at the WF public Library and they had been 'tampered' with . A reprint with all the 'racist' or otherwise 'offensive original writing of Twain being removed and replaced with much gentler and non offensive trash . I had to buy the books on EBAY reprinted in the 1930's to maintain original according to Twain . Ya can't change history , you live and learn from it .

puma guy wrote:

WildBill wrote:

puma guy wrote:You can decide where these guys fall in the scale of intelligence. I suspect some of the current generation are not far from these two, for the same reason.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/tw ... your-head/

I don't think the scale goes that low.

Maybe the equivalent a geranium?

I have never taken an IQ test but it's obvious in am not worthy to be associating with you brilliant and humble folks.

mojo84 wrote:I have never taken an IQ test but it's obvious in am not worthy to be associating with you brilliant and humble folks.

I haven't either, not a legitimate one anyway, and I don't think it's a particularly good idea to do so. Whether the results are low or high I don't see the psychological effects as likely to be constructive.

Also, while I won't say they have no value, and while am skeptical of how accurately they measure innate intelligence, they do measure something potentially useful.