i chose the wrong personRaspberriel wrote:
how the hell did you get silenced for almost two dayslol wrote:
you don't make me angry blitzfrog otherwise i'd do something, i just occasionally call you cancer which is pretty light compared to what i did before i was banned:)))))) i'm sure some people here can remember
also ye dragon loli is alright but if you have dragon loli porn that's a solid amber alert
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
is the fucking server suffering or is it just my bad internet??
edit: better now
edit: better now
mada mada mada mada hosshii no
tatoe
It's serverkai99 wrote:
is the fucking server suffering or is it just my bad internet??
edit: better now
Freaking lagged 20second per page
Don't get me wrong B1rd, but the way the guy wrote in that thread convienced me that the silences were 100% deserved.
ORAYYYTTT!!!!!Meah wrote:
Rock and roll, to the world ~Pochacco wrote:
i like rock but i want to throw my rock to the rock band
Geniuses solve problems no one else can solve.
The way the guy wrote convinced me that he was genuine pissed off about some injustice, which don't happen infrequently.Mara wrote:
Don't get me wrong B1rd, but the way the guy wrote in that thread convienced me that the silences were 100% deserved.
Well, one is an abstract pseudo-scientific concept, the other is an objective measurement of one's cognitive ability.Meah wrote:
IQ vs EQ, what do you think makes a genius?
First of all ; how do you see a person that classified as genius?.Meah wrote:
IQ vs EQ, what do you think makes a genius?
Is it the vast amount of knowledge that they posses or just how they can creatively create something out of nothing.
For me its kinda hard choice as for IQ and EQ both play and important role.
Nope, it's underrated.Blitzfrog wrote:
IQ is overrated
Nope, it's overratedB1rd wrote:
Nope, it's underrated.Blitzfrog wrote:
IQ is overrated
InterQuartilerange
He is russian. They are always pissed off no matter what is going on.B1rd wrote:
The way the guy wrote convinced me that he was genuine pissed off about some injustice, which don't happen infrequently.
...at least my 2000 hours in CS:GO has told me that.
finally
sad fact: i couldnt farm haitai b/cuz not enough skills
Sad fact: I couldn't grind pp anymore. ar8 DT is now too fast for me to follow.
he srsly needs to do this
and put emphasis on the moaning part
and put emphasis on the moaning part
hello darkness my friend
Go post in my raspberry thread
Then provide evidence showing that IQ isn't an important factor in the academic achievements one can make and actually back up your wishful thinking.Blitzfrog wrote:
Nope, it's overrated
lol
Stop being so ignorant about your arguments. You don't need any evidence from him, unless you're utterly blind and can't look around yourself for 3 seconds. The majority of the population of Earth has average intelligence, yet they populate the most "highly rated" jobs. Intelligence not only isn't an important factor in the outcome of your education, but is in fact completely irrelevant. Memory and discipline play major roles there and nothing else.B1rd wrote:
Then provide evidence showing that IQ isn't an important factor in the academic achievements one can make and actually back up your wishful thinking.
It's not me who's being ignorant, your arguments have been unfortunately liberal lately. You don't have to provide any evidence? What a joke, your statement is completely divorced from reality. According to this test, the average IQ for an experimental physicist is 147 https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct= ... Gc&cad=rjaAurani wrote:
Stop being so ignorant about your arguments. You don't need any evidence from him, unless you're utterly blind and can't look around yourself for 3 seconds. The majority of the population of Earth has average intelligence, yet they populate the most "highly rated" jobs. Intelligence not only isn't an important factor in the outcome of your education, but is in fact completely irrelevant. Memory and discipline play major roles there and nothing else.
The fact is that IQ is a very important factor in the capabilities that one can achieve. It is impossible for someone with an IQ of 80 to be a physicist. This is true regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.
^reminds me of this
edit: lmao there was more to this series????????
edit: lmao there was more to this series????????
Everyone who uses osugame is automatically a piece of shit that should be drawn and quartered
im listening to more and its fucking hilarious this is my cancer lullaby for today.Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Everyone who uses osugame is automatically a piece of shit that should be drawn and quartered
they're actually kinda good with this song imo
You guys don't mind if I but in do you?Aurani wrote:
Stop being so ignorant about your arguments. You don't need any evidence from him, unless you're utterly blind and can't look around yourself for 3 seconds. The majority of the population of Earth has average intelligence, yet they populate the most "highly rated" jobs. Intelligence not only isn't an important factor in the outcome of your education, but is in fact completely irrelevant. Memory and discipline play major roles there and nothing else.B1rd wrote:
Then provide evidence showing that IQ isn't an important factor in the academic achievements one can make and actually back up your wishful thinking.
I don't exactly know what the context is but I'm guessing you're talking about about the success of a country/how rich a country is (or something similar in regards of it's people). "Intelligence not only isn't an important factor in the outcome of your education, but is in fact completely irrelevant". Intelligence isn't the only important factor but how is it completely irrelevant? Do you have any evidence to support this? If we were to have both 2 groups of people on both ends of the spectrum, one being completely retarded and the other being highly intelligent, if you were to theoretically make all the other variables the same are you saying the outcome of their education would be the same as well?
"You don't need any evidence from him, unless you're utterly blind and can't look around yourself for 3 seconds." Also when you state stuff like this wouldn't that mean evidence could have easily have been provided in 3 seconds as well i.e. with little effort? Or is this untrue and you said to allow you to throw out a generic insult?
/r/osugame sings PLANET//SHAPER when
EDIT: They're talking about being a genius, and how IQ affects academic achievement/being successful in life.
EDIT: They're talking about being a genius, and how IQ affects academic achievement/being successful in life.
yh, I realized that later on but it still doesn't change much
You gotta define successful though
I.Q is so not important in the current world it's not funny
It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.
It's more about what family you're born than what brain you're given
I.Q is so not important in the current world it's not funny
It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.
It's more about what family you're born than what brain you're given
Well yh, geography does play a part but I don't see how one can argue that intelligence is "completely irrelevant"Blitzfrog wrote:
You gotta define successful though
I.Q is so not important in the current world it's not funny
It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.
It's more about what family you're born than what brain you're given
No, it's just a liberal myth that there is a big untapped resource of smart people in poor areas. What family you're born into is one of the factors that goes into determining how smart you are.Blitzfrog wrote:
It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.
If you're talking about success in the financial sense, prudency, common sense and delayed gratification or big factors. But IQ is still a very good measurement to determine someone's cognitive ability.
People just don't like to put any stock into IQ because they don't like the idea of people being inherently superior or inferior. In other words it's just political correctness getting in the way of objectivity.
This is beautiful
http://nicovideo.jp/watch/sm23470771
http://nicovideo.jp/watch/sm23470771
watching this atm
ITT 3: We talk about parallel universes.kai99 wrote:
watching this atm
O P I N I O N D I S C A R D E D
what
I didn't pay 4 bucks for this, B1rd. Go back to natto and stop lewding the dragon loliB1rd wrote:
I have a lot of porn of this character on my HDD.
B1rd wrote:
No, it's just a liberal myth that there is a big untapped resource of smart people in poor areas. What family you're born into is one of the factors that goes into determining how smart you are.Blitzfrog wrote:
It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.
Do you believe that IQ is entirely inherent and can't be changed throughout your life? This feels like an assumption made by most people.
I know that's part of the point of testing for IQ in the first place, but I'm pretty sure it's both a mix of nature AND nurture, like most things about people. I mean, there's two ways of looking at statistics:
Wow, look at all of these shit countries that test for incredibly low IQs (in the 60s, on average, for example). These people are, genetically, inherently inferior!
Wow, look at all these shit countries that test for incredibly low IQs. I wonder how that'd change if those people were put in much better environments- they'd probably rise a lot, given different circumstances!
One of them is a conclusion that's rather blindly stated (probably because superiority feels good to those people), the other one asks a question, more than anything.
I agree with dad
I personally think intelligence is gained rather than genetically bounded. If you just cool your pride and think about it for a sec you will know what I'm saying
I personally think intelligence is gained rather than genetically bounded. If you just cool your pride and think about it for a sec you will know what I'm saying
is this thread like..... 5 posts per minute or something?@?@?@
I know you are trying to make a joke but it really fails when it's visible that the post t prior to yours was made over 5 hours agoCanadian Baka wrote:
is this thread like..... 5 posts per minute or something?@?@?@
You gifted B1rd a supporter tag?Foxtrot wrote:
I didn't pay 4 bucks for this, B1rd. Go back to natto and stop lewding the dragon loliB1rd wrote:
I have a lot of porn of this character on my HDD.
He made natto. That's pretty fucking rad to me
Sorry I don't give money to individuals named Blitzfrog, my mom told me not to
well, technically I am giving money to peppy so mmmmhh
well, technically I am giving money to peppy so mmmmhh
i don't simply make natto
i create it.
i create it.
Your mom told you to give Blitzfrog supporter cus that's where all the goodies comeFoxtrot wrote:
Sorry I don't give money to individuals named Blitzfrog, my mom told me not to
well, technically I am giving money to peppy so mmmmhh
We were talking about individuals, but if you want to bring up demographics, then yes it is evident that IQ is related to race. Blacks in America have higher IQs than blacks in Africa, due to access to more education and more white genes, however it is still significantly lower than Whites, even controlling for socio-economic levels. Asians and Jews have higher IQ than Whites, Whites have higher IQ than Hispanics, Hispanics have higher IQ than Negroes, Negroes have a higher IQ than indigenous Australians. Given the same circumstances. Anti-racialists are also anti-objective ideologues who make any plausible excuse to deny the obvious conclusion.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Do you believe that IQ is entirely inherent and can't be changed throughout your life? This feels like an assumption made by most people.
I know that's part of the point of testing for IQ in the first place, but I'm pretty sure it's both a mix of nature AND nurture, like most things about people. I mean, there's two ways of looking at statistics:
Wow, look at all of these shit countries that test for incredibly low IQs (in the 60s, on average, for example). These people are, genetically, inherently inferior!
Wow, look at all these shit countries that test for incredibly low IQs. I wonder how that'd change if those people were put in much better environments- they'd probably rise a lot, given different circumstances!
One of them is a conclusion that's rather blindly stated (probably because superiority feels good to those people), the other one asks a question, more than anything.
In my opinion, considering I'm not a biologist, IQ is part nature and part nurture. Part of what determines your IQ is your genetics, the other part is your environment during your formative years. Once you're an adult however, like reaction speed, it's very hard to raise your IQ. Of course it's possible, considering that an IQ test is just a test of lots of different individual aspects, but you can't raise your IQ to the point you would surpass someone who was significantly more naturally gifted. Geniuses aren't made, they are born.
You and I, we're men of sublime taste.Foxtrot wrote:
He made natto. That's pretty fucking rad to me
btw, I have like, hundreds of pics of Sakuya I hand-picked from pixiv myself.
Mmh, my lack of Sakuya pictures is worrying. Sure, please send me your goods whenever you have the time.B1rd wrote:
You and I, we're men of sublime taste.Foxtrot wrote:
He made natto. That's pretty fucking rad to me
btw, I have like, hundreds of pics of Sakuya I hand-picked from pixiv myself.
I'm sure most of them are hentai.Foxtrot wrote:
Mmh, my lack of Sakuya pictures is worrying. Sure, please send me your goods whenever you have the time.
Let me see.
well, you're wrong.Blitzfrog wrote:
I agree with dad
I personally think intelligence is gained rather than genetically bounded. If you just cool your pride and think about it for a sec you will know what I'm saying
intelligence has both an environmental and genetic component, as proven by countless studies on the subject.
I meant not genetically bounded doesn't mean none of it is genetics....Railey2 wrote:
well, you're wrong.Blitzfrog wrote:
I agree with dad
I personally think intelligence is gained rather than genetically bounded. If you just cool your pride and think about it for a sec you will know what I'm saying
intelligence has both an environmental and genetic component, as proven by countless studies on the subject.
if every single person from the slums was seperated from their environment and raised in a high income household environment, their iq's would most likely show the normal bell curve, centered around iq 100.
Like seriously what part about a human isn't genetics...
These are amazing; thanks for sharing.B1rd wrote:
nah
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zop12y6w96b3 ... 82f7a?dl=0
Both environmental and genetic factors play a very big role, so i wouldn't want over- or understate the importance of either. When it comes to intelligence, genetics are VERY important.Blitzfrog wrote:
I meant not genetically bounded doesn't mean none of it is genetics....
Like seriously what part about a human isn't genetics...
Pretty fucking dank.B1rd wrote:
nah
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zop12y6w96b3 ... 82f7a?dl=0
stick to shitposting pls blitzfrog
I do what I want hueKisses wrote:
stick to shitposting pls blitzfrog
You know whatRailey2 wrote:
Both environmental and genetic factors play a very big role, so i wouldn't want over- or understate the importance of either. When it comes to intelligence, genetics are VERY important.Blitzfrog wrote:
I meant not genetically bounded doesn't mean none of it is genetics....
Like seriously what part about a human isn't genetics...
I would say slider size is a good representation of intelligence
Because in order for sliders to become large it requires incredible amounts of nutrients
Which means the brain is good at absorbing nutrients and perform it's action.
It is also a well known fact that mating boosts cognitive functions,
well with a bigger slider, you mate more, therefore you have increased cognitive function
Long story short, i agree with B1rd.
if you admit that intelligence is partially hereditary then you have to concede that there will probably be differences between the races, even after you control for socio-economic factors. Who knows how big these differences are, but they certainly exist.
intelligence is hereditary. There's not a lot to talk about here, imo.
if you admit that intelligence is partially hereditary then you have to concede that there will probably be differences between the races, even after you control for socio-economic factors. Who knows how big these differences are, but they certainly exist.
intelligence is hereditary. There's not a lot to talk about here, imo.
Define intelligence
Problem Solving?
Learning Speed?
Creativity?
Imagination?
Curiosity Level?
Concentration Abilities?
Or maybe all of those combined?
Well here is what the dictionary says:
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
This means applying known knowledge?
What about new knowledge?
How does one measure creativity and imagination abilities?
I'm sticking with the "the bigger the slider the smarter you are"
Problem Solving?
Learning Speed?
Creativity?
Imagination?
Curiosity Level?
Concentration Abilities?
Or maybe all of those combined?
Well here is what the dictionary says:
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
This means applying known knowledge?
What about new knowledge?
How does one measure creativity and imagination abilities?
I'm sticking with the "the bigger the slider the smarter you are"
I think anti-racialists are probably more focused on what can actually be effected with new policy. If you say "Okay, X races are inferior IQ-wise, so they're just gonna be worse off and we should keep things the way they are", that's not exactly inviting progress- whereas the less conservative view is that regardless of the source of people's low IQ or other inequalities, work should be done to minimize that inequality where reasonably possible. So we should still try to make sure black people get an equal access to education as white people, even if they are inherently lower intelligence, or whatever.B1rd wrote:
[
We were talking about individuals, but if you want to bring up demographics, then yes it is evident that IQ is related to race. Blacks in America have higher IQs than blacks in Africa, due to access to more education and more white genes, however it is still significantly lower than Whites, even controlling for socio-economic levels. Asians and Jews have higher IQ than Whites, Whites have higher IQ than Hispanics, Hispanics have higher IQ than Negroes, Negroes have a higher IQ than indigenous Australians. Given the same circumstances. Anti-racialists are also anti-objective ideologues who make any plausible excuse to deny the obvious conclusion.
In my opinion, considering I'm not a biologist, IQ is part nature and part nurture. Part of what determines your IQ is your genetics, the other part is your environment during your formative years. Once you're an adult however, like reaction speed, it's very hard to raise your IQ. Of course it's possible, considering that an IQ test is just a test of lots of different individual aspects, but you can't raise your IQ to the point you would surpass someone who was significantly more naturally gifted. Geniuses aren't made, they are born.
I don't think it's really possible to control for socioeconomic factors when testing IQ comparisons between races though, considering how different their lives end up being as a result of race. Hopefully in the future we'll have a better answer to these kinds of things, if only for the sake of curiosity (since as said, non-conservatives' focus is on what can be done, rather than "people are this way", full stop)
dad
hi
where are these people coming from
where are these people coming from
It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I think anti-racialists are probably more focused on what can actually be effected with new policy. If you say "Okay, X races are inferior IQ-wise, so they're just gonna be worse off and we should keep things the way they are", that's not exactly inviting progress- whereas the less conservative view is that regardless of the source of people's low IQ or other inequalities, work should be done to minimize that inequality where reasonably possible. So we should still try to make sure black people get an equal access to education as white people, even if they are inherently lower intelligence, or whatever.
I don't think it's really possible to control for socioeconomic factors when testing IQ comparisons between races though, considering how different their lives end up being as a result of race. Hopefully in the future we'll have a better answer to these kinds of things, if only for the sake of curiosity (since as said, non-conservatives' focus is on what can be done, rather than "people are this way", full stop)
is it really, though?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I don't think it's really possible to control for socioeconomic factors when testing IQ comparisons between races though, considering how different their lives end up being as a result of race. Hopefully in the future we'll have a better answer to these kinds of things, if only for the sake of curiosity (since as said, non-conservatives' focus is on what can be done, rather than "people are this way", full stop)
Sorting after income, education and occupation should get you really far already.
Certainly it won't be completely perfect, but in many cases it should be good enough?
You've suddenly made a lot of really sweeping claims.B1rd wrote:
It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.
What do you mean by saying that redistribution of wealth makes the ones benefiting "less able, less independant", and "is immoral"? As citizens get more well-off, they have less kids, not more. This is an easily observable trend in every single country- the richer it is, the less kids they have. Why shouldn't the same apply to people of lower classes in one of the great first-world countries? You seem to feel very strongly about your position here, but I'm not entirely sure why things must be so black-and-white when it comes to topics like welfare or wealth redistribution in general.
In many cases it should be decent, yeah. It's just that racial issues still do very much exist regardless of where you are, for the most part, and it's hard to tell how much of an effect that has on people's development.Railey2 wrote:
is it really, though?
Sorting after income, education and occupation should get you really far already.
Certainly it won't be completely perfect, but in many cases it should be good enough?
not controlled for socioeconomic factors.Comfy Slippers wrote:
[image]
You're definitely overestimating how big the biological differences are.B1rd wrote:
It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.
The ideal of equality doesn't mean that everyone should be equal, its about giving everyone equal chances. The liberal ideal pertains to the american dream as it was originally conceived: The equality of opportunity.
However this does not mean that everyone should simply be left to their own devices. Equality of opportunity can only be achieved when everything needed for a successful career is equally accessible to everyone:
- Transportation
- Education
- Health Care
- Housing
- etc.
That is what welfare should achieve.
Someone with iq 100 from a poor family should at least have somewhat similar opportunity compared to someone with iq 100 from a moderately wealthy family.
Just putting it out there. This is just one of the arguments that there are racial differences when it comes to intelligence. Nobody is disallowing black people to leave ghetto and bad environments but instead they want to disrupt the social status with BLM and black nationalistic movements, selling crack for living, committing other various crimes, shooting the police so they can continue using the victim card etc. Black peoples contribution to society throughout history is minimal, and again this is not racism it's just proven facts. Nothing against these people and I know there are a lot of reasonable black people who are productive but there is still the majority that's the problem. A family friend got murdered in such "bad" environment, he did nothing, just took a wrong turn not knowing the city, why? Just because he has different skin color. Just happy they came back to Bosnia due to this. And as time goes by far-right is making more and more sense. Multiculturalism is ruining the world, leftist can't see this. If african descendants were in africa, if middle-easterners were there, and so on, there wouldn't be any issues. But no, we have to make people like Soros, Obama, Erdogan, Merkel into heroes and others like Trump into villains.
Obama isn't a hero lol
He's just far better than the current president
He's just far better than the current president
e.eKisses wrote:
I know you are trying to make a joke but it really fails when it's visible that the post t prior to yours was made over 5 hours agoCanadian Baka wrote:
is this thread like..... 5 posts per minute or something?@?@?@
hdrftghftgyujtgyikgyh
Railey2 wrote:
not controlled for socioeconomic factors.Comfy Slippers wrote:
[image]You're definitely overestimating how big the biological differences are.B1rd wrote:
It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.
The ideal of equality doesn't mean that everyone should be equal, its about giving everyone equal chances. The liberal ideal pertains to the american dream as it was originally conceived: The equality of opportunity.
However this does not mean that everyone should simply be left to their own devices. Equality of opportunity can only be achieved when everything needed for a successful career is equally accessible to everyone:
- Transportation
- Education
- Health Care
- Housing
- etc.
That is what welfare should achieve.
Someone with iq 100 from a poor family should at least have somewhat similar opportunity compared to someone with iq 100 from a moderately wealthy family.
Excellent post, I agree 100%. And yes, that post of "raw data" that only separates by race means absolutely nothing.
I want to agree with this but my experience with the horrible No Child Left Behind Act makes me want to think otherwise. Instead of trying to push the less-gifted kids into becoming as intelligent as the more gifted ones and having everyone be equal, we should be pushing the gifted kids into becoming even smarter. After all, these kids are our next doctors, scientists, astronomers, ect.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
If you say "Okay, X races are inferior IQ-wise, so they're just gonna be worse off and we should keep things the way they are", that's not exactly inviting progress- whereas the less conservative view is that regardless of the source of people's low IQ or other inequalities, work should be done to minimize that inequality where reasonably possible.
All of those minus curiosity level, though, from my experience, intelligent people tend to be very curious people themselves (probably because as it's easy for them to learn things, it snowballs into wanting to learn more, whereas with "dumber" people the opposite tends to happen)Blitzfrog wrote:
Define intelligence
Problem Solving?
Learning Speed?
Creativity?
Imagination?
Curiosity Level?
Concentration Abilities?
Or maybe all of those combined?
Well here is what the dictionary says:
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
This means applying known knowledge?
What about new knowledge?
How does one measure creativity and imagination abilities?
I'm sticking with the "the bigger the slider the smarter you are"
You can still agree with the principle while criticising how it is carried out. If the No Child Left Behind Act wasn't good enough, then it should be replaced with something better, no? I'm sure a lot of people feel this way about the ACA. Obamacare DEFINITELY was not perfect, but the solution to that would be to fix it and make it better.johnmedina999 wrote:
I want to agree with this but my experience with the horrible No Child Left Behind Act makes me want to think otherwise. Instead of trying to push the less-gifted kids into becoming as intelligent as the more gifted ones and having everyone be equal, we should be pushing the gifted kids into becoming even smarter. After all, these kids are our next doctors, scientists, astronomers, ect.
And sure, I'm all for helping the talented kids too. There's lots of improvement that can be made in plenty of places in society!
The principle itself is also unappealing, it makes more sense to have a world where some people have an IQ of 120-130+ than a world where everyone has an IQ of 70.