Ten oz

To your point: ", in 2013 the top one percent of households had 49.8% of all privately held stock, 54.7% of financial securities, and 62.8% of business equity. The top ten percent had 84% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate." http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Thousands on people crash vehicles everyday around the world and on several occasions a year intentionally into people or places.

"A last-ditch effort by Senate Republicans to repeal and replace ObamaCare is gaining steam, suggesting lawmakers could face another vote on ending the former president's signature law later this month. Supporters do not appear to have the 51 votes necessary to pass the bill yet, but pressure is growing on Republicans to back the measure, which could replace much of ObamaCare with block grants for states. In a crucial boost for its chances on Monday, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) offered his support. "Congress has 12 days to say 'yes' to Graham-Cassidy. It's time for them to get the job done," he said, referring to the bill's two main co-sponsors, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.)." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/overnights/351244-overnight-health-care-new-gop-obamacare-repeal-bill-gains This is sort of along the lines of my concerns. While Bernie Sanders has many debating the pros and cons of medicare for all which currently has no chance of even earning a vote in Congress muchless passing the GOP are taking another crack at the ACA.

I don't believe in race. I already called it a cultural construct. So obviously I don't believe in a pure race. However you have indicated race exists and that based on race there are cognitive variances. Implying that race exists yet none are pure renders the construct worthless in my opinion.

Start addressing questions posed to you with something other than generalities and sarcasm and we will start respecting you.

Your determination in Defending Your views has no impact on their accuracy.

All of what and some of what? And if the answer is none then how can the cognitive abilities of individual races be assessed?

Who needs peer reviewed assessments when one has self confidence....or rather it that one with confidence can accept review? I don't know; must be one of them.

So if a person is darker, lighter, has different hair color, or whatever they are a different race? Which populations in the countries of the various studies you have referenced are of a pure individual race? Different genes come from different time periods and different mutations were inherited by different populations. Which of these are you claiming is responsible for race and which genes responsible for different cognitive ability by race?

You say the neccessay factors can be controlled yet it is debatable whether or not race even exists. Race is a social construct and not a biological reality. So the controls you mentioned are just bias bits of imagination meant to produce an outcome. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ You also keep mentioning IQ as if IQ tests are the universally accepted gold standard for cognitive ability when they are not. Tests like IQ, ACT, SAT, and etc I designed to help predict what ones ability to accomplish certian things might be. They are not designed for the purpose of saying one person is more intelligent in absolute terms to another. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx On this forum if you search around you'll find threasd debating the existence of race and threads debating the best definitions for intelligence. Neither is perfect scientific definition so any experiment attempt to prove which race of people have the best inherited cognitive traits will produce an outcome relative to the researchers on own views. You are taking debatable theories produced from questionable research and treating it like proof of things which they are not. Eugenics has been used to accomplish different things throughout history. Hitler wasn't interested in the personality traits of individual Jews. Japan's Eugenics protection law purely focused on genetics diseases. Throughout history some of the best researchers have been otherwise imperfect humans depending on ones definition of perfect. Stephen Hawking has ALS, John Forbes Nash was a paraniod schizophrenic, Charles Darwin had Agoraphobia, and etc. For our species to thrive it simply isn't clear which traits and combination of traits are the best. Evolution isn't linear. A species doesn't evolve from worst to best. There is not a pinnacle.

We can do better. We can get more data. The study of twins separated at birth can be done in more locations. Different countries or even parts of the same countries have different societal behaviors. Those difference may or may not influence the out of the studies. More data is the simple solution in opinion. While annoying your sacrastic posting style is probably useful to you: "But new research by Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School, Adam Galinsky, the Vikram S. Pandit Professor of Business at Columbia Business School, and Li Huang of INSEAD, the European business school, finds that sarcasm is far more nuanced, and actually offers some important, overlooked psychological and organizational benefits. " https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/07/go-ahead-be-sarcastic/ Does society accept sarcasm from everyone equally? In my experience sarascm from women and low income people at large isn't accepted. It is viewed as rude. We may tolerate a sarcastic reply by a professor or someone we respect but typically not from the employee serving us coffee at a cafe. As a result are certian people denied the mental benefits associated with sarcasm? As a result are their children negatively effected being raise by parents who lack or repress sarcasm as form of communication? Would that show up on an IQ test?

I don't know that IQ tests a perfect messure of intelligence and or cognitive function. There might be societal biases built into IQ tests. Because if the tests are not perfect and if there are biases built into them where someone who is Christian, vegan, spanish speaking, has blue eyes, comes from a suburb vs inner city, etc whatever has an advantage than that create errors. What if the exact same study of twins done in Minnesota as done in the Bahia state of Brazil; would the results be the same? For the study to be accurate in its conclusions the results would need to be same right?

Our disagreement is whether or not enviromental factors can be accurately accounted for. "In 1979, Thomas J. Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and reared in different families. He found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin.[3] This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment." On the surface this seems like a solid experiment but can't account for the way people are treated: "According to a recent study, people who are considered attractive have higher intelligence, better education, and higher earnings than those who are considered less attractive. The study was led by Michaela Benzeval of the Social and Public Health Sciences Unit at the Medical Research Council in Scotland and was based on information gathered from a larger longitudinal study. " https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/are-attractive-people-more-successful-0604133 Are twins separated at birth similar as adults because society at large treats each a specific way based on the way they look? Do all similar looking people regardless of genetics end up with similar personalities based on the way they they are treated by society? I don't think we know the answer to that.

Yes, because lottery wins have the same potential of happening for both sets of twins they can ba accounted for to a degree but what about the way society treats them and the impact of that on the likelihood they'd play the lottery in the place? Both sets of twins are not treated the same by society at large. As a result of their treatment a variety of other factors, which would otherwise seem hold the same rates, can change. For example do attractive high school students and unattractive high school students have the same odds of being in a car accident? It might be possible that attractive high school people have more active social lives and as a result travel places via cars more often which increases their odds of being in an accident. Same sort of things applies to twins. Are one type of twins, fraternal or identical, commonly more popular in school and if so what are the enviromental impacts of that? I don't think we know the answer to questions like that.

That doesn't remove enviromental differences. Just because one is a twin doesn't mean every aspect of their lives is identical to their twin. One twin can be molested or otherwise abused. Even something small as an illness during a critical development stage of childhood can have an impact. Then their is the issue of whether or not society at large treat fraternal twins and identical twins the same. In my experience identical twins are treated as an oddity will fraternal twins can often be judge by which of the 2 are better looking, taller, and etc. That all inevitably impacts things to a degree such an expirement doesn't account for. Enviromental factors and genetics are not the same thing and I am not implying they are. I am saying both have an impact on the mind. Are you claiming otherwise?

The OP asked " So this study and claim are saying the person IQ , education achievement and academic achievement is base on genetics? " . IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. It is an attempt to assess intelligence. That is a matter of the mind. What a person knows and how they can access and utilize knowledge exists in the mind. Mind: noun 1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. 2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities. 3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence. I provided links from the same source as the OP showing the enviromental facts matters. Since we understand this how can we accurately test for heritability alone? Everyone is exposed to enviromental factors; without exception. Even ones appearance, which is highly heritable, impacts their enviroment as people treat each other differently based on height, race, eye & hair color, and etc. It is very difficult to parse out individual factors that influence how mind forms. Additionally I think it is self evident that humans have the capacity to obtain greater levels if intelligence than our parents. If not how did our intelligence ever evolve in the first place? That isn't to say genetics don't play a role; they clearly do. There is a long list of heritable mental disorders than clearly limit function of the mind. Additionally other genetic factors which weaken the body can't negatively impact the mind. There are many factors.

iNow's link looked at the impact on the state of Kansas to tax cuts and not the per capitia homeless rate around the country. Bit of a bait and switch at work here. When politicians argue taxes the number of homeless people is never the issue. At least not that I have seen. Tax debates normally revolve around jobs and govt budgets. It is very easy for everyone to agree with MigL's point about spending because on all sides of the political spectrum people feel govt money going towards things they don't argee with is money wasted or mismanaged. As a result all sides feel we need to do better. The rest of MigL's post states we should use the Candian model or keep the ACA in lieu of a superior alternative. The Canadian model won't reduce taxes or direct govt involvement in healthcare.

The resource dilution model posits that parental resources are finite and that as the number of children in the family increases, the resources accrued by any one child necessarily decline. Siblings are competitors for parents' time, energy, and financial resources and so the fewer the better. Even one sibling is too many. The author describes the general elements of the dilution position and assesses its merits for explaining the effect of siblings on one component of the educational process--tests of intellectual development. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11413873 "There is substantial evidence indicating that children who witness domestic violence (DV) have psychosocial maladaptation that is associated with demonstrable changes in the anatomic and physiological make up of their central nervous system. Individuals with these changes do not function well in society and present communities with serious medical, sociological, and economic dilemmas. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193214/ " Meta-analyses, combining data from hundreds of individual studies, confirm an association between exposure to violence in media and antisocial tendencies such as aggression" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170902/ Many things impact development. The study in the OP looked at 2 types of twins. However as the above links (same source as the OP) show things like the number of siblings one has to witnessing violence, or even watching violence on TV all impact development. Very few people, perhaps none, a raised in a perfect enviroment and as such a study attempting to measure matters of the mind soley on genetics alone is very different. Perhaps impossible without ignoring ethical concerns which themselves could corrupt any such expirement. In my opinion a happy upbring by supportive loving parents who passed on average genetics is greater than a tragic upbringing by hyper intelligent parents who were abusive emotionally or physically.

Conceding that it is bad would beg to question how to fix it.

I don't think anyone is proud about that. I think Republicans and their supporters invested a lot of intellectual and emotional energy in being combative as possible toward various policies without any honest consideration for good governance. Now that they are responsible for making decisions switching gears is tough. Neither the executive or legislative branches actually had a replace for the ACA ready for debate despite the all leaders of each having campaigned on replacing the ACA. I think that is very telling. It exposes just how empty their rhetoric was. We are now seeing this play out with taxes. POTUS wants tax cuts. He says the biggest tax cuts in history yet has no specific ideas of what they will look like or whether they'd impact deficits. During the years of campaigning for the White House Trump never actually thought up an executable policy. Ditto Paul Ryan who has sold himself as a budget hawk for most of his political career. Turns out backseat driving doesn't prepare one to actually drive.

And I have repeatedly ask you for examples of countries or even states where less, much less, taxeshave benefited the economy.

Milton Freidman died in 2006. He have no idea what he would think of the current state of our econmy or taxation. You do not speak for him. You speak for yourself. You are not a noble winner. It is pointless to bring up the work of others less you plan to explain how you'd like to see them implimented. BTW, Barrack Obama has a Noble too. I doubt you think that makes him and his positions beyond reproach? Obama's Noble is a useless factiod to this discussion and doesn't add or subtract anything. Either you believe taxes are too high and should be cut or not. That is what the President and Congress is currently negotiating. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can't simple stand on the floor and state "Milton Freidman has a Noble" over and over again and hope policy materializes. Policy must be written and rhetorically complaining about Obama's deficits and self actualization are nonstarters as they fail to recommend an alternative. In my opinion your behavior on this topic is indicative of the struggles conservatives in the U.S. Congress has had legislatively since gaining control of all the branches of govt. They spent years rhetorically complaining just to complain without honestly considering alternatives. They knew they hated the ACA but never actually wrote an alternative, they knew they hated DACA but never came up with a solution, they knew Obama was too weak towards Iran, Assad, Kim Jong-un, and etc but never bothered to imagine policies which would achieve better outcomes, and etc. What would you like to see done regarding taxes??? That should be an easy question to answer on the 6th page of a Taxation thread.

Give us an example of the Milton Friedman model working long term (over a decade) in a country or even a province or state. Keynesian principles have been attempted numerous times and you are totally ignoring the outcomes in favor of a entirely theoretical perspective.

Rape is wrong either way it goes and I doubt anyone here will argue otherwise. The difference in the way claims are treated evolves from the fact that female on male rape is considerably less common and more difficult to perform. It took decades for date rape to be a acknowledges phenomenon. The notion of women raping men is still rather new and will take time for the predatory indicators and behaviors to be identified and understood.

I suspect so many cosponsored to avoid conflicts with Sanders and/or his supporters. Even after Sander's supported Ellison lost the DNC to Perez Dems still made a point to give Sanders a seat at the table and followed Sanders lead is the special Elections (which demand lost). Dems are trying hard to avoid in fighting.