I'm not running anywhere......that book is garbage, has been debunked a hundred times in a hundred different ways. http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml The Bell Curve rests on two distinctly different but sequential arguments, which together encompass the classic corpus of biological determinism as a social philosophy. The first argument rehashes the tenets of social Darwinism as it was originally constituted. Social Darwinism has often been used as a general term for any evolutionary argument about the biological basis of human differences, but the initial nineteenth century meaning referred to a specific theory of class stratification within industrial societies, and particularly to the idea that there was a permanently poor underclass consisting of genetically inferior people who had precipitated down into their inevitable fate. The theory arose from a paradox of egalitarianism: as long as people remain on top of the social heap by accident of a noble name or parental wealth, and as long as members of despised castes cannot rise no matter what their talents, social stratification will not reflect intellectual merit, and brilliance will be distributed across all classes; but when true equality of opportunity is attained, smart people rise and the lower classes become rigid, retaining only the intellectually incompetent. This argument has attracted a variety of twentieth-century champions, including the Stanford psychologist Lewis M. Terman, who imported Alfred Binet's original test from France, developed the Stanford-Binet IQ test, and gave a hereditarian interpretation to the results (one that Binet had vigorously rejected in developing this style of test); Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yevv of Singapore, who tried to institute a eugenics program of rewarding well-educated women for higher birth rates; and Richard Herrnstein, a co-author of The Bell Curve and also the author of a 1971 Atlantic Monthly article that presented the same argument without the documentation. The general claim is neither uninteresting nor illogical, but it does require the validity of four shaky premises, all asserted (but hardly discussed or defended) by Herrnstein and Murray. Intelligence, in their formulation, must be depictable as a single number, capable of ranking people in linear order, genetically based, and effectively immutable. If any of these premises are false, their entire argument collapses. For example, if all are true except immutability, then programs for early intervention in education might work to boost IQ permanently, just as a pair of eyeglasses may correct a genetic defect in vision. The central argument of The Bell Curve fails because most of the premises are false.
Oh I read pretty well, for a white collar professional anyway. YOU on the other hand seem to have great difficulty with reality.
So says the idiot trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to misrepresent the facts. Unfortunately for you Lucrum can not only read , he demonstrates comprehension far beyond yours or cheeze-whiz arrows abilities.
This was one of your 5 points? Are you sure you are up to this task? Nice cut n paste job, now just for the record since this is a debate between the 2 of us , state in your own words a synopsis of what you have pasted. Might just for good measure state why you think it's relevant. I'll debate you but I prefer not to debate someone else's paid work . PS. My advice is, you better ask your homies to help you out.
That won't happen. RCG never took debate class. He was in 'changing bedpans & giving enamas' class when everyone else was taking debate.
You wrote some convoluted post, I asked you to break it down. Anyone who read this thread with an education can see that. You are just not willing to deal with the reality that you stats are from a bogus piece of work. You posted a cut and paste of some graphic, I responded in kind. Simple....for those of us who can read, that is.
(My)stats are from a bogus piece of work. : run away rcg run away Your cut n paste didn't address any information depicted in the graphic.
You threaten to engage PT with your mythical "Five Points" then run like a little cunt apparently hoping no one would remember.