Controversy in Conversation

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'd take a look at Epigenics, one of the newer sciences that say that internal chemicals can switch genetic information on; so that a child born to a poorer family is stronger but less willing to learn; whilst THE SAME CHILD born to richer parents will be smarter.

actually epigenetics is not that at all, it says something very different. the epigenome is part of all humans. as put if the genome is the blueprint for how the body is laid out, the epigenome is the instructions on how to assemble it.

No, but epigenics is

 

[Geoffrey42]

also with teachers, hearing them say how over worked they are constantly is total crap, they have school 10 months out of the year, at least 1 day off per month, 2 weeks in some months, so they're down to at least 3 months a year with holidays included and then they don't even work a full 8 hours a day and get paid half decently. sorry the "course prep" stuff doesn't work as an excuse, cause if you haven't laid out your course by the end of your second year of teaching you should find another line of work. a lot this actually comes from a teacher, i just happen to agree with it

They have work for 10 months out of the year, for which they are paid for 10 months out of the year. Many teachers have to pick up summer jobs to cover the gaps, because like most people, they can't afford 2 month unpaid vacations. Per the 8 hour day... this varies, and it largely depends on that teacher's dedication. The "course prep" stuff? Aside from grading assignments (which most schools don't allot paid time for), you and your teacher-buddy think its a good idea for a teacher to get their lesson plan set after 2 years, and then stop? Good teachers may reuse the framework, but they also update it to fit new information, new current events, or new teaching methods, and hopefully tweak it year after year. This assuming, of course, that said teacher is teaching the same class for years on end. Sometimes, people like a little variety in their careers, outside of "Bio I".

P.S. A lot of what I just said comes from several teachers that I'm close to, I just happen to agree with them.

P.P.S. Physically assaulting a child to get your point across is not teaching them anything except to fear pain. If you get to the point where that's your only option for reaching them, I'd say that you failed them a long time prior. What other scenario can you think of where it's societally preferable for you to beat the **** out of someone to get your point across?

 

[Seldon2639]

That's almost exactly my point. If we're coming up with explanations for why some students succeed, while others don't, or why some groups are more academically successful, we need to take all possible factors into account, study them, and determine (insofar as we can) which variable is of the greatest impact.

Of course we should. I think all the people who shouted you down would say we should. My guess is you just brought it up in a way that struck people as racist.

Just as important in succeeding in this world as 'cognitive ability' is social intelligence. You just experienced the chances of success based on cognitive ability combined with a lack of social intelligence ;-D

That's a fair point, though I would argue that (given the context) there would be no other way to bring up the point. Scientifically, if they're confident about their beliefs, they should be willing to go point for point with any other mindset, rather than devolving into epithets. It does seem to be a problem with any dogma (religious or not) that no matter how "logical" we pretend to be, scholasticism is alive and well.

On the Middle Ages thing, Gallileo was placed under house arrest and forced to recant his works. Copernicus' book on astronomy was (on his deathbed) published with an introduction which reduced his findings to hypotheses. "The inquisition is unnecessary when people are their own inquisitioners." Descartes was probably the last of the great scholastics, and Newton the first of the pure intellectuals. Descartes still towed the party line of "no matter your logic, come back to the pack and accept God exists". Newton's line was "go wherever logic and evidence takes you".

But, free thinking isn't free when it always comes back to the same conclusions that were provided at the beginning. It was Montaigne who said (during the Renaissance) "one should not hold strongly enough to his belief to burn someone else for them". William Durant adds "or to allow oneself to be burned for them". I don't agree entirely with Cleverlymadeup, but he's not completely wrong.

On that note, though:

@cleverlymadeup:

You say things like "culture is more important" and "first and foremost parents are largely to blame and their lack of education and bad parenting skills", but you don't provide evidence for the relative importance of these, or the relative unimportance of heritability. It's impossible to post more than extracts from studies here, but I can send you evidence from UCLA Medical School, Yale Medical School, The European Journal of Human Genetics, and James Watson (nobel prize-winning scientist)

 

[Joeshie]

You say things like "culture is more important" and "first and foremost parents are largely to blame and their lack of education and bad parenting skills", but you don't provide evidence for the relative importance of these, or the relative unimportance of heritability.

Actually, if you did some research, I'm sure you could find plenty of studies and tests done which do show correlations.

To say that nurture has no effect on a person is rather ignorant.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Galileo was born in 1564. Those were not the dark ages--that was the Renaissance.

Thirty years before that Copernicus' heliocentric theories were made known to Rome, and no action was taken against him.

Newton never feared publishing anything (besides his forays into alchemy); in fact, he was elected to Parliament.

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that learning was forbidden by the Church for religious reasons during the Dark Ages, but the university as an institution spread during the High Middle Ages. The 'Dark Ages' are of course a pejorative term applied by people of the Renaissance, mostly because they thought Classical Latin was superior to Medieval Latin as a language.

Just a friendly reminder from your local chapter of the Anti-Church & Medieval Defamation League ;-D

well let's see where i should start

people were NOT allowed to read, speaking of latin was forbidden besides members of the preisthood, any foray into "scientific" (cause alchemy was in there) was considered heresy

the church denounced both galileo and copernicus as heretics and only recently have said the earth was not the center of the world, yes it may have been a formality but still it was on the books they didn't follow that truth the sun is the center of our solar system.

the church forced the burning of the library of alexandria, which had writings from early man, maybe even before egypt existed.

Netwon didn't publish his works because he was afraid of religious persecution, it was his friends in the royal society that helped him.

sadly religion has taken a stance of outright dismissal and attacks to anything that seems to challenge it's authority. look at darwin and evolution and the intelligent design boondoggle going on now. they could easily incorporate various scientific theory into their beliefs and do it correctly because it's not a book of literal truth but only parable and legend.

best thing i've heard from a religious leader was someone who asked the dali llama what he would do if someone could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt reincarnation was impossible and never happened. the response of the dali llama was that he would accept they were wrong and go tell all of his followers personally they would have to find a new belief for the human spirit and that they were wrong about the reincarnation thing

the christian church at one point would have you killed on the spot for uttering heresies such as jesus was just a very enigmatic and charismatic mortal man and not the divine son of man

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

also with teachers, hearing them say how over worked they are constantly is total crap, they have school 10 months out of the year, at least 1 day off per month, 2 weeks in some months, so they're down to at least 3 months a year with holidays included and then they don't even work a full 8 hours a day and get paid half decently. sorry the "course prep" stuff doesn't work as an excuse, cause if you haven't laid out your course by the end of your second year of teaching you should find another line of work. a lot this actually comes from a teacher, i just happen to agree with it

A rather idiotic teacher then. Given that both my parents are teachers and I have been one, I think the above paragraph is similar to "All Doctors do is listen to people's problems and prescribe aspirin."

Wrong. Totally. Like any other occupation, there are some dipshits who glide through, but you ask any good teacher and they'll tell you that good 'prep' takes at least twice as long as the lesson itself.

Oh, and if a child assaults them, they have no legal recompence. Want to know how they do that? Run into a table just at groin height.

 

[Geoffrey42]

The relevance of what I'm about to say is debatable, but it really depends on your perspective, so I'll throw it out there for those to whom it might seem relevant.

Scientifically, if they're confident about their beliefs, they should be willing to go point for point with any other mindset, rather than devolving into epithets.

That sounds a lot like the argument that ID'ers make. "If you're so confident about your Darwinism, why won't you come into our arena and fight us? Prove us wrong!" Eventually, you get tired of people's dogmatic pseudo-science, and you start ignoring them, or worse, throwing epithets.

 

[Geoffrey42]

the church denounced both galileo and copernicus as heretics and only recently have said the earth was not the center of the world, yes it may have been a formality but still it was on the books they didn't follow that truth the sun is the center of our solar system.

Isn't the "center" of a group of heavenly bodies just a nitpick anyway? Isn't it all just a matter of perspective? If I were to claim that my left toe were the only fixed point in the universe, would it really matter? Does it change anything about physics, or the rotation of the earth? Not that I know of.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

@cleverlymadeup:

You say things like "culture is more important" and "first and foremost parents are largely to blame and their lack of education and bad parenting skills", but you don't provide evidence for the relative importance of these, or the relative unimportance of heritability. It's impossible to post more than extracts from studies here, but I can send you evidence from UCLA Medical School, Yale Medical School, The European Journal of Human Genetics, and James Watson (nobel prize-winning scientist)

actually most of those studies, that yes i'm aware of, are dismissed by the scientific community as a whole. they say that yes there is something but not enough conclusive evidence to support it, basically it gets killed in the peer review part. it causes no end to arguement and yes you can name certain ppl of creed that are stupid but i can name you equally large amounts of the "smarter" creed than you can, cause it most theories asians are the smarted but at with several billion asians in the world, i'm betting there's more stupid ones than "smart" ones

oh and a quick look up of james watson and most of his work in intelligence and race is considered bad and racist and that's being nice

ok how parents play a roll is easy, most don't take a real active part in their kids lives, they grow up with them and do more stuff than they should for the kid, they don't discipline kids correctly, they don't allow their kids to fail or experience true failure, yes we need to fail at thing

now onto culture

take a plainsman in africa, are they "stupid"? probly not, sure they don't know about computers or how to drive a car but they don't need to know that, could you teach him about those things? yes you could, just because he doesn't know about something doesn't mean him or his people are stupid, it's a totally different culture and lifestyle than our's. however he can track things very well, show what plants are ok to eat, tell you how to find good prey and hunting, tell you without knowing the date when it's good to plant crops and many other things we don't know about.

now take a japanese kid, is he "smart"? yeah you'd probly say he is, probly can speak 2 langs, highly skilled at math, can drive a car, can play a ps3. however can he do the things that the plainsman can? no he can't but he could learn much like the plainsman could learn what the japanese kid could

see intellegence is a subjective thing. iq tests don't test intelligence accurately. they only test knowledge and your ability to regurgitate it back to the tester. but how can you test someone who can't speak? such as someone with severe autism. the modern iq test fails miserably at that.

like if i asked you to describe a table and a cup sitting on it, i'm betting you would have trouble doing that and think i'm stupid for even suggesting it's a test of intelligence but it is. or how about being able to read a map and then figure out how to get to a point with the map or even give simple directions.

intelligence is not a genetic trait, it's learned. the only issue is ppl won't, not can't, learn certain things, they refuse to open their mind to the possibility

 

[rockchild17]

ehh, the entire nurture vs. nature discussion is pointless for some reason. even if we do find a correlation/causation of a gene to learning problems, for example, then what do we do? do we tell them "hey, your screwed because you have this gene"? i'd imagine that your reaction to that would be no, but then what else is there to do with that information.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

That sounds a lot like the argument that ID'ers make. "If you're so confident about your Darwinism, why won't you come into our arena and fight us? Prove us wrong!" Eventually, you get tired of people's dogmatic pseudo-science, and you start ignoring them, or worse, throwing epithets.

hehe there's a great nova show on the id'ers going to court with the darwin ppl, if you have a chance to watch it do so, the court scenes are not slanted, they used the transcripts of the court.

fav part is where the lawyer for the darwin side, for lack of a better term, piles like 50-60 books in front of jeff fahey about how certain biological organisms evolved certain things and the id'er side said "oh and they expected him to read all those books"

funny part is the judge, who admitted to knowing "nothing about evolution or science" and being a hardcore christian, found the id'ers arguments REALLY bad and flimsy and sided with the darwin people

and yeah i know it's not the exact center BUT it's more of a perspective thing cause we revolved around that big angry ball of fire which in turn revolves around an even bigger meaner universe sucking entity that's surprisingly not located on the persons of paris hilton or lindsay lohan

 

[Easykill]

I don't think anything should be off-limits to test, but I think you're wrong. I won't get to deep in this.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Can we call Godwin yet? This is gonna get messy.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Besides the fact that Cleverlymadeup has a curious interpretation of the word 'recently' considering heliocentric works have been off the prohibited list of the Church since the mid-18th century (what I think Cleverlymadeup is thinking of is the *apology* for the *persecution* of the *man*, not some 'official position' on the theory occurring recently), there is a difference.

actually it was a lifting of the ban on the heliocentric universe that happened in the mid-18th century and then in the 19th century they allowed the publication of heliocentric books in rome

so in the span of several thousand years, just over 100 years is recently

and by saying they forgave galileo, they were actually saying he was correct, this was this century.

the heliocentric theory shows how science evolves, as our knowledge and technology expand we change our views on things, sometimes we were totally wrong but sometimes we just weren't seeing everything necessary for proper knowledge, such as how our planet works.

we add or change our outlook as new knowledge is gained and incorporate it into our way of thinking.

 

[Seldon2639]

@cleverlymadeup:

You say things like "culture is more important" and "first and foremost parents are largely to blame and their lack of education and bad parenting skills", but you don't provide evidence for the relative importance of these, or the relative unimportance of heritability. It's impossible to post more than extracts from studies here, but I can send you evidence from UCLA Medical School, Yale Medical School, The European Journal of Human Genetics, and James Watson (nobel prize-winning scientist)

actually most of those studies, that yes i'm aware of, are dismissed by the scientific community as a whole. they say that yes there is something but not enough conclusive evidence to support it, basically it gets killed in the peer review part. it causes no end to arguement and yes you can name certain ppl of creed that are stupid but i can name you equally large amounts of the "smarter" creed than you can, cause it most theories asians are the smarted but at with several billion asians in the world, i'm betting there's more stupid ones than "smart" ones

oh and a quick look up of james watson and most of his work in intelligence and race is considered bad and racist and that's being nice

ok how parents play a roll is easy, most don't take a real active part in their kids lives, they grow up with them and do more stuff than they should for the kid, they don't discipline kids correctly, they don't allow their kids to fail or experience true failure, yes we need to fail at thing

now onto culture

take a plainsman in africa, are they "stupid"? probly not, sure they don't know about computers or how to drive a car but they don't need to know that, could you teach him about those things? yes you could, just because he doesn't know about something doesn't mean him or his people are stupid, it's a totally different culture and lifestyle than our's. however he can track things very well, show what plants are ok to eat, tell you how to find good prey and hunting, tell you without knowing the date when it's good to plant crops and many other things we don't know about.

now take a japanese kid, is he "smart"? yeah you'd probly say he is, probly can speak 2 langs, highly skilled at math, can drive a car, can play a ps3. however can he do the things that the plainsman can? no he can't but he could learn much like the plainsman could learn what the japanese kid could

see intellegence is a subjective thing. iq tests don't test intelligence accurately. they only test knowledge and your ability to regurgitate it back to the tester. but how can you test someone who can't speak? such as someone with severe autism. the modern iq test fails miserably at that.

like if i asked you to describe a table and a cup sitting on it, i'm betting you would have trouble doing that and think i'm stupid for even suggesting it's a test of intelligence but it is. or how about being able to read a map and then figure out how to get to a point with the map or even give simple directions.

intelligence is not a genetic trait, it's learned. the only issue is ppl won't, not can't, learn certain things, they refuse to open their mind to the possibility

Again, the need for sources looms large. If you claim it's been "dismissed", who has dismissed it, and on what grounds. I've read no treatise from the American Academy of Sciencies saying "this is wrong", and most of the attacks on Watson have been political, rather than scientific. Same thing with Andrew Summers of Harvard who said we should look into whether women aren't as good at math and science.

"intelligence is not a genetic trait, it's learned. the only issue is ppl won't, not can't, learn certain things, they refuse to open their mind to the possibility"

You need to provide some evidence for this. I referenced an extract from a Yale study earlier in the board. I'm not saying it's right, or that genetics accounts for the preponderance of intelligence, but if you're going to say "it's wrong, and no one thinks it's true", in the face of at least some evidence, you need some evidence of your own.

"the church forced the burning of the library of alexandria, which had writings from early man, maybe even before egypt existed."

Let's talk about the library of Alexandria. The most likely time of destruction (of the four possibilities) is the Decree of Theophilus in 391. True, it was a Christian emperor (before the construction of the "church") who made the decree, but that's like saying that the Church is responsible for the actions of Constantine. I don't like to defend the church, but you're messing up with dates and events.

"the church denounced both galileo and copernicus as heretics and only recently have said the earth was not the center of the world, yes it may have been a formality but still it was on the books they didn't follow that truth the sun is the center of our solar system."

Gallileo was placed under house arrest, and recanted his works, but was never a "heretic". Copernicus' works were published (without his knowledge) with a disclaimer referring to them as "hypotheses", it wasn't the "church's" doing anyway, it was his friend

 

[electric discordian]

My wife is a teacher and she is in a state of mental meltdown, she was punched by a pupil at the start of this week, her pregnant colleague was punched in the stomach by a pupil and then sacked for taking the afternoon off for having the baby checked out. Education has been co-opted by politicians. The way I see it is this if society goes to hell in a hand cart the prime-minister always goes for the option that will lose the least voters. Hence children run feral through the streets do you blame parents which comprise about 70% of the populace or teachers who comprise about 10%.

Oh and a note on political correctness this is a really really bad idea, it devalues the very things that it seeks to protect. How can you take anything seriously when you now have to go down a person hole into the sewers and you cant call a black board a black board. Is this what Martin Luther King dreamed of a society run by petty minded pencil pushers.

Oh and on the topic of Gallileo lets not forget Willhelm Reich a man who postulated a alternate theory of evolution which challenged Darwinism. For this terrible crime he was frames as a communist and all his books were burned as Commie propaganda. That was in the enlightened Usa in the nineteen fifties.

Intellectual rigour is something that happens to other cultures

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Again, the need for sources looms large. If you claim it's been "dismissed", who has dismissed it, and on what grounds. I've read no treatise from the American Academy of Sciencies saying "this is wrong", and most of the attacks on Watson have been political, rather than scientific. Same thing with Andrew Summers of Harvard who said we should look into whether women aren't as good at math and science.

actually there's LOTS to discredit it, just use your own eyes and the simple law of averages to show you how dumb "a person race will determine how smart they are"

most of the eugenics stuff show that asians are the smartest, yet billions of chinese can barely read or write and have no idea what running water is, so by that measure they aren't the smartest group of ppl, even according to your own fractured logic

and since there is less ppl of african extraction than asian, they have more smart people by simple numbers, so therefore people of african extraction are smarter than asians

see eugenics isn't good and has been long discredited as bad science, sure it can appear in some medical publication but so does a lot of other bad crap that's wrong, this is why we have peer review

"intelligence is not a genetic trait, it's learned. the only issue is ppl won't, not can't, learn certain things, they refuse to open their mind to the possibility"

You need to provide some evidence for this. I referenced an extract from a Yale study earlier in the board. I'm not saying it's right, or that genetics accounts for the preponderance of intelligence, but if you're going to say "it's wrong, and no one thinks it's true", in the face of at least some evidence, you need some evidence of your own.

yes and an article that is trashed as bad science and not to even mention the law of averages based on very simple math, wow that didn't take that much proving

"the church forced the burning of the library of alexandria, which had writings from early man, maybe even before egypt existed."

Let's talk about the library of Alexandria. The most likely time of destruction (of the four possibilities) is the Decree of Theophilus in 391. True, it was a Christian emperor (before the construction of the "church") who made the decree, but that's like saying that the Church is responsible for the actions of Constantine. I don't like to defend the church, but you're messing up with dates and events.

well ok not the church but the early christians themselves but still it was christianity as a whole that did it

"the church denounced both galileo and copernicus as heretics and only recently have said the earth was not the center of the world, yes it may have been a formality but still it was on the books they didn't follow that truth the sun is the center of our solar system."

Gallileo was placed under house arrest, and recanted his works, but was never a "heretic". Copernicus' works were published (without his knowledge) with a disclaimer referring to them as "hypotheses", it wasn't the "church's" doing anyway, it was his friend

yes but why was he placed under house arrest and why didn't copernicus publish his works and why was newton afraid of publishing his? it was because of the church's anti-knowledge stance, if you have an intelligent populace they become harder to control

also your nobel laureate won it for his discovery of the double helix and not eugenics

 

[cleverlymadeup]

My wife is a teacher and she is in a state of mental meltdown, she was punched by a pupil at the start of this week, her pregnant colleague was punched in the stomach by a pupil and then sacked for taking the afternoon off for having the baby checked out. Education has been co-opted by politicians. The way I see it is this if society goes to hell in a hand cart the prime-minister always goes for the option that will lose the least voters. Hence children run feral through the streets do you blame parents which comprise about 70% of the populace or teachers who comprise about 10%.

well for your wife, that sux, for her friend that's a grievance at the least (aren't unions great?) and a lawsuit and anything that happens to the baby that's criminal charges for the kid, i do believe assault is still illegal and possible attempted murder because she was pregnant and have her union person demand that, you'll watch the school cave really quickly

as much as i hate unions they can be really useful if they got some leg to stand on and smell a lawsuit, which in both cases they are prime lawsuit material

Oh and a note on political correctness this is a really really bad idea, it devalues the very things that it seeks to protect. How can you take anything seriously when you now have to go down a person hole into the sewers and you cant call a black board a black board. Is this what Martin Luther King dreamed of a society run by petty minded pencil pushers.

yeah i HATE political correctness it devalues things, i remember some freaking losers trying to get the name of the movie the two towers changed because it wasn't politically correct after 9/11

it's horrible to see all of our language being watered down because "it's not nice sounding" but yeah the truth hurts sometimes, and everything good isn't always nice sounding

 

[Seldon2639]

On the Middle Ages thing, Gallileo was placed under house arrest and forced to recant his works.

Once again, THOSE WERE NOT THE MIDDLE AGES!!! People really need to learn a bit more about history before pontificating on it, at LEAST enough to be able to tell the Middle Ages from the Renaissance if they're going to use those terms. To say nothing of the fact that the original post used the term Dark Ages--which ended around 1000--making it an even bigger mistake. Not to mention it was brought on by barbarian invasions, not the Christian Church. If anything, the Christian Church was the *preserver* of learning during the so-called Dark Ages.

Galileo was born OVER FIFTY YEARS after Michelangelo finished the Sistine Chapel. Yet somehow through some quirk of the space-time continuum--or people talking out of their ass-- Galileo was placed under house arrest before that work of art was completed.

Sure Cleverlymadeup isn't entirely wrong that religion has at times been the enemy of free thinking and science. However, I never said he was entirely wrong. Just that his examples and his grasp of the historical time line are totally off the mark, and his understanding of the period almost as flawed. It's just funny to me how in a thread all about truth and intellectual rigor, people are this sloppy with their history.

True, I wasn't arguing that it was the middle ages, merely that his reference of Gallileo having his works suppressed was (vaguely) accurate

 

[Seldon2639]

actually there's LOTS to discredit it, just use your own eyes and the simple law of averages to show you how dumb "a person race will determine how smart they are"

most of the eugenics stuff show that asians are the smartest, yet billions of chinese can barely read or write and have no idea what running water is, so by that measure they aren't the smartest group of ppl, even according to your own fractured logic

and since there is less ppl of african extraction than asian, they have more smart people by simple numbers, so therefore people of african extraction are smarter than asians

see eugenics isn't good and has been long discredited as bad science, sure it can appear in some medical publication but so does a lot of other bad crap that's wrong, this is why we have peer review

"intelligence is not a genetic trait, it's learned. the only issue is ppl won't, not can't, learn certain things, they refuse to open their mind to the possibility"

You need to provide some evidence for this. I referenced an extract from a Yale study earlier in the board. I'm not saying it's right, or that genetics accounts for the preponderance of intelligence, but if you're going to say "it's wrong, and no one thinks it's true", in the face of at least some evidence, you need some evidence of your own.

yes and an article that is trashed as bad science and not to even mention the law of averages based on very simple math, wow that didn't take that much proving

"the church denounced both galileo and copernicus as heretics and only recently have said the earth was not the center of the world, yes it may have been a formality but still it was on the books they didn't follow that truth the sun is the center of our solar system."

Gallileo was placed under house arrest, and recanted his works, but was never a "heretic". Copernicus' works were published (without his knowledge) with a disclaimer referring to them as "hypotheses", it wasn't the "church's" doing anyway, it was his friend

yes but why was he placed under house arrest and why didn't copernicus publish his works and why was newton afraid of publishing his? it was because of the church's anti-knowledge stance, if you have an intelligent populace they become harder to control

also your nobel laureate won it for his discovery of the double helix and not eugenics

Okay, first and foremost, when did "eugenics" get into this debate? I never said the word eugenics (before now), nor have I supported it. Saying "intelligence is heritable" =/= eugenics. I'm not sure who "[trashes UCLA med, Yale med, and the European Journal of Human Genetics] as bad science", because the only person I've seen doing that in this post is *you*. If you have a bunch of peer-reviewed journal articles which contradict mine, please bring them out. Until then, just saying "most scientists don't approve" is about as significant as if I said "most scientists think I'm right". Hell, mine would be more significant since I've at least shown *some* scientists who think "g" is inheritable. Show me the "law of averages" which contradicts the concept of inheritable intelligence, and I'll be very surprised. You've started setting up straw men of my arguments, and that's almost universally the sign that a discussion has become untenable. I never said that "someone's race determines how intelligent they are", nor have I advocated (nor has James Watson) eugenics.

"and since there is less ppl of african extraction than asian, they have more smart people by simple numbers, so therefore people of african extraction are smarter than asians"

I understand that your goal is to discredit my arguments by creating unreasonable caricatures of them, but even this makes less sense. First, the purpose of ascertaining "g" value is to regress (and hence control for) other variables (such as income, numbers, ect.), second, you're not providing any kind of evidence for your claim that there are "more smart [people of african extraction] than smart asians", so for want of actual statistics, I'm going to assume you're making it up. Also, not for nothing, but the point of statistics, and the bell curve, is to create a standard distribution of values, not simply compare the number of "smart" (by what measure, incidentally) people vis-a-vis the total number of people.

If you'd like to have an actual discussion, I'd welcome it. If you have evidence of "peer-review" knocking down the studies I've referenced, or evidence that "most" scientists view inheritibility of intelligence as wrong, I'm all ears. Until then, please try to remember than in a discussion of science, simply claiming something to be the case, or referencing "simple" anything is insufficient. Also, if you're going to take someone's arguments to an illogical extreme, and then respond to them, it works better if you can at least actually disprove even the illogical extreme