aswokei

Yes it is, for a lot of people. What keeps me going? My family. If I ended it, it would start a bad and ugly chain-reaction too personal and horrible for me to seriously contemplate initiating. Plus I want to experience life in the future. I want to see what happens. This is a really exciting time to be alive.

Guys love getting tube socks because of the way they feel out of the package. Nothing feels better than wearing a pair of new socks for the first time. Not to mention, the more pairs of socks you have, the fewer times you need to do the laundry. I have lot of socks(and other articles of underwear) for that reason, but not tube socks (ankle socks). It's kind of like kissing. Nothing beats the first kiss. All the other ones are simple relationship validation protocol. Well maybe not exactly like kissing. Nice theory though, IMM.

Mine.

Nanotechnology is and will be a huge deal in the future. Computers have allowed programmers to be creative and express their genius in ways that were never before conceivable. A computer programmer can do nearly anything, changing a world of code, changing the functionality of software and related devices. Nanotechnology is going to bring that to the physical realm.

What if we were able to extract DNA from Leonardo Davinci and (somehow) create a million clones? What if then we gave those babies to adoptive parents throughout the planet? What impact would that have on the world, say, when those clones grow up and realize their power?

Heh, boxing has got to be the dumbest, most primitive sport ever. Think about it. It's just two guys punching each other in the head. Lol, can't get any dumber than that.

That would suck. A lot.

Btw, I appreciate the responses everyone, but if you read closely, I'm trying to make this discussion be about people who we personally know.

Bascule: I expected Ray Kurzweil to be in your list. Browsing through the debate subforum, I noticed that you think we're going to reach singularity within 20 (30?) years. Heh, it's funny. My uncle who is a very intelligent (not genius) computer programmer has been reading up on this guy. He says that the things Ray predicts are incredible. Indeed a lot of the stuff he says seem like science fiction, but then again, he is a genius and he has contributed a whole hell of a lot. I think I remember something about him working for Novelle, designing network operating systems. He also invented the flatbed scanner we all know and numerous other things. Don't get me wrong -- we'll reach the singularity. But in 20-30 years? That's really not much time at all. Anyway, I'm rambling and off topic. In my own thread!

Ah, but you do not know them personally.

There may be a thread like this somewhere, but. Who do you know personally that you admire the most? Describe this person. Why do you admire him/her? Do you try to emulate that person? Discuss. For me, the person I know personally that I admire above anyone else is (was) one of my college professors. He taught a few programming and database courses. A few things about him: - he's 56 years old - probably the smartest person I know - very hardworking - is passionate about the work he does - does bicyle racing - very physically fit To me, he is the personification of success. He has a wife whom he loves and is a successful father. But what interests me a lot is his intelligence. I know a lot of intelligent people and I know people are often intelligent in different ways, but this guy's smarts are everywhere. Very good communication skills, writing, mathematics, spatial, logical and probably most importantly, social skills. I don't know anyone else that is good at everything the way he is. He seems to always be "on" and in the moment -- his focus always razor sharp. He's one of those guys that would be useful anywhere you put him. It seems like he's honed himself to be as good as possible at different things. In one hand, he's one of the most masculine guys I know (extremely logical, strong and good at getting stuff done) -- and on the other hand he's one of the most feminine (He's an incredibly perceptive and good listener and empathizer -- not just reading in on what is said, but subtle cues -- very attentive to details) It just baffles me how well-developed his mind is. I can't forget to mention his enthusiasm. He invests himself into his work completely. And when he's talking about programming concepts it's sometimes hard to not laugh because you can tell how excited he gets when he's lecturing about programming. But it gets me excited too. Heh, he has more energy than most kids I know. Very decent and caring man. In many ways, I think he's what people ought to try to be.

Sisyphus: No. Actually, I was being facetious. The study which tries to prove that blacks and whites are the same in intelligence tries to use as evidence the small closing of the race gap. It says assuming that trends continue the way they are, that reading levels for blacks will equal those of whites in 25 years and science scores will equal those of whites in 75 years. My point is that they're making out that the "closing" aptitude test disparity between whites and blacks seem greater than it really is. I think you may be getting confused. If you look at the things I wrote, you'll see nowhere that I said that environment plays no role. That's just silly. You, on the other hand, said genetics plays no role. Which is silly. I can actually quote that, and in fact, I did. Now, I know that's not what you literally meant. I mean, let's get real. Both nature and nuture matter. But I think nature is more important because nurture (our environment) depends a lot on who we are because we are humans and we have the ability to change our environments. So yes, environment matters. But it is my contention that nature (our genetic compositions), has a lot to do with nuture (the environments we create for ourselves and our progeny) - especially in dealing with humans because to our unique ability to manipulate our environment. Perhaps a combination of our indoctrinations (it being looked down upon to notice differences in races) and the unamiguous influence of environment on blacks have made it seem acceptable to dismiss genetics as a factor, but look around. Neither you, nor Phil answered my question as to why blacks are disadvantaged as a society everywhere they go. My answer is that they are not equipped to create good* environments for themselves or their progeny. But statistics nearly everywhere agree that they are disadvantaged (at least to live according to the lifestyles of the powerful majority). Does this not make sense? As for the study, I'm very skeptical of it because it has information in it that don't agree with information that has long had its place in the scientific community. Let me explain. It said that black children raised in black, middle class families IQs were 104, where black children raised in white middle-class families was 117. The average black person's IQ (not in just middle-class suburbia) is 85. If this study is not flawed, the inconsistent numbers are probably due to the fact that those middle-class children are not good representations of black Americans. Phil: Can you get that quoted from a source somewhere? I read that pdf you gave me and kept mentioning the closing gap between whites and blacks but it said nothing near to the effect of an eliminated gap. Obviously, I'm talking about culture in a very broad sense. What this speculation is based on is that culture and social norms have a lot to do with a selected group's environment and gene pool. What activities come naturally to most people, determined by genes and environment, in that group inevitably turn into the rule. *good - I know my definition of good is biased.

You're right. Did I ever dispute this? What? It may be true that black adoptees achieve much better when adopted by white families. Bt something tells me that those studies are misleading. Do you know much about group polarization? Take a man, put him in an environment with a lot of other men, and he will become more manly. Take a geek, put him in a room full of geeks and he will get geekier. Take a black person and immerse him black environment and he will get blacker. Black culture in a way seems innate. Those black adoptees have it in them, but it is not expressed. The child adopts the culture around him/her completely, just like all humans are programmed to do. But bring black individuals together and black culture emerges - just like any other group of people. How is it not taking into account for environment if one notes the fact that blacks nearly everywhere on the planet share similar patterns of violence, low education, high crime and low achievement? I remember a few years ago, being very innocent and reading up on statistics on blacks to disprove some racist I was arguing with. But I was shocked. I couldn't find any legitimate information to support my argument at all. The same patterns follow them everywhere they are. Why are they disadvantaged wherever they go?

I've never heard of limecat. I doubt your teacher has either. Do it!

1998 Ford Escort SE. It, being my first car, because it was cheap and in good condition. $1,200. It had 135,000 miles on it. But it gets great gas mileage (about 40 in the Summer, and 30 in the Winter (I live in New Hampshire)). I'd like to have a Lotus Elise. Why? Because they're rare. They look amazing, unlike anything else on the road. You can get them in the US. They handle better than nearly anything on the road. They're smaller than almost anything on the road. And they're faster than almost anything on the road.

Phil: If it's so easy to understand, perhaps you can enlighten me as to why it is that wherever blacks are, so follow the same pattern of disproportionate high violence and crime, low education, low achievement and low standard of living? To me, the answer doesn't require scientific analyses. Just common sense and a little knowledge about statistics.

Sisyphus: It seems we have been getting information from different sources. According to that pdf Phil gave me, blacks are closing the race gap. It says that assuming trends continue, black reading levels will equal those of whites in 25 years. And their science scores will level out with whites in 75 years. If trends continue of course. One of the studies it cites demonstrates that environment, like you say, matters. (which I never actually disputed) It was an adoption study. In this study, it was found that black children raised by black middle-class families averaged 104 in IQ tests, where black children raised by white middle-class families averaged 117. However, I've read several other adoption case studies that indicate a different conclusion (genetics). link So it's hard to know. I do find it curious why it apparently matters so much whether or not the home is black or white. I guess the reason I tend to think it's genetic is because of what I see in the real world - not the world of academia. If one looks at their achievements and progress (or lack thereof), how could one not judge them as having less intelligence? Arg man. Arg. (In reference to population control) "But does it help you pass on your genetic traits?" It doesn't appear that way. At first look. But if they keep on multiplying and suffer a huge plague, destroying the entire population, that's not nearly as desireable, is it? Phil: Actually, I do not know a lot about Rushton or his studies. I just grabbed the link because it was available and it had numbers and IQ statistics that are very consistent with what is accepted in the science community. I was citing him for his statistics. jowrose: They are receiving aid from the US. They're handing out condoms and are encouraging them to them to use them, and you are right. They are definitely lacking in resources. The point I was making is that if they were more intelligent and apt to learning, there wouldn't be so many dying from AIDS.

spudpeel: It absolutely can be. In fact, I've read in Freakonomics (I'm sure some of you have heard about this book. It's pretty fun, easy and interesting reading about underlying truths and debunking conventional wisdom) a chapter about the author's findings in scholastic success in Chicago middle schools using switchboard statistical analsysis. Essentially, it enables researchers to control for different factors in kids' lives, such as: - whether or not the spoken language in the child's household is English - whether or not the parents attend PTA meetings - whether or not the parents cap the child's television viewing habits - whether or not the child has a lot of books in his house - etc... lots of stuff along those lines. And what makes the book so fun and fascinating is learning what things really do matter. And like one might suspect, the author's studies have indicated that children whose households do not speak English primarily, do considerably worse than other children with English-speaking households. Yeah, I agree, and studies back that up. Another interesting one that correlates with scholastic success is the number of books a child has in his household. Children who have a lot of books in their houses tend achieve significantly more than kids with not so many. People have misinterpreted this information and have initiated programs to give kids books in hopes that it will make them smarter or achieve better in school. But it did not. The author surmises the reason smarter children have more books is because they inherited their intelligence from their parents. Books don't make children smarter. Smarter children gravitate toward books naturally. The books in the child's household is a consequence of his intelligence. Nearly everything I've read suggests that intelligence is inherited. I hear people say this from time to time, but they can never give me any reliable data. I am open though. I would love to get my hands on this information. Phil: I was just correcting Sisyphus. This is what he said: He made an incorrect statement. So I called him on it. Again, I haven't read anything convincing about the differences disappearing when controlling for the environmental factors. But it's interested how ready people are to accept it. Maybe I'm ignorant. But that can be fixed. It just seems there is a lot of pressure these days to not notice differences in groups, especially races.

I haven't read a whole lot about intelligence being environmental. There may indeed be something to that. But to say that it's not genetic leads me to believe you are completely out of your mind. Considering their population, you really think that's a bad thing? In my opinion, it seems they simply adapting to their environment. Don't you think it's a sign of collective wisdom that as the population density reaches a critical mass, that they stop reproducing so much? Or should they continue reproducing at an uncontrolled rate until they're living in their own shit suffer a plague? In my opinion, population control is a contrived consequence of the application of intelligence.

Sisyphus mentioned or alluded to the fact that it seems that lesser intelligent people are breeding more than the higher intelligent. This rings true. And for intelligence to be desirable evolutionarily, what you want has to be more children. But is more always better? One has to look at those countries like South Africa, where the population is breeding like crazy, despite their state of destitute poverty. Are those people better off than say, white Europeans, who seem to average 2-3 children per family? Or even China, where law prohibits more than 2 children per couple. It certainly doesn’t seem that way to me.

But even so, the data he presents in this situation is nothing startling. You find that same pattern of IQ disparities between race just about anywhere you look. Blacks, then whites, then orientals/jews. That's the only point I wanted to make. That, and what an obvious difference IQ makes in the real world, which if looked at honestly and compassionately is extremely apparent and real.

Phil: Can you cite that for me? Well, it doesn't really matter. I didn't really want to make this a big thing about race anyway. It just seemed like a really easy and obvious way to show how much intelligence matters.

Sisyphus: Thanks for your response. Could you please cite those studies for me? Nearly every scientific study I have read about the differences in race acknowledges the disparity of apparent intelligence. I actually only started getting interested in this sort of stuff in the past few years when I was reading in my pyschology text book for school about intelligence. It said the average IQ for whites in America is 100, hispanics, 92, blacks, 85. Needless to say, I was surprised because like a lot of people, prior to that, my thoughts about race were what I had been brainwashed with: Everyone is the same. Their skin may be different colors. But we are the same. Everyone is equal. Well, for anyone who refuses to have blinders on their eyes, it turns out that's not true at all. The differences exist and they are more apparent to me than ever. I what I meant by "too dumb to use a condom" is that if they were smarter in South Africa, AIDS wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem as it is. Well I understand this is a touchy subject. But people here seem a bit more intelligent and dispassionate than people from other forums. And therefore I figured this would be a better place to discuss this because people here seem more likely to attack an argument rather than the person proposing the argument. I can see your point here. I'd like to see where you got this and who decided on what is meant by "successful" and "well-adjusted".

Yeah, this isn't a loaded question. Bombus: We don't control our thoughts; our brain does. Transdecimal: that is a hot picture.

I don't think there are many cases where intelligence isn't a desirable trait to have. The only exception I can think of is with some women. It seems that archetypal men are more drawn to dumb or 'ditzy' women. Perhaps it's because these women are easier prey and are easier to dominate, which is what archetypal men like to do. It's even well-known that some women pretend to act dumb to land their man of preference (by dyeing their hair blonde and acting dumb). So that right there is an example of how intelligence kicks ass. Even if intelligence is undesirable in a certain situation, an intelligent person can adapt and get what he/she wants because he/she is clever and cunning. So it is my proposal that intelligence is nearly ALWAYS good to have. If this is true, why haven't humans evolved to be more intelligent than they are? Intelligent people clearly have a huge advantage over the idiots and it shows. Here's some information I got from this link: Brain Size Cranial Capacity: Blacks: 1,267 Whites: 1,347 Orientals: 1,364 Brain Size Cortical Neurons (millions): Blacks: 13,185 Whites: 13,665 Orientals: 13,767 Intelligence IQ Test Scores: Blacks: 85 Whites: 100 Orientals: 106 Reproduction Hormone Levels: Blacks: Higher Whites: Intermediate Orientals: Lower Personality Aggressiveness: Blacks: Higher Whites: Intermediated Orientals: Lower Marital Stability, Law Abidingness, Mental Health: Blacks: Lower Whites: Intermediate Orientals: Higher "Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct," by J. Phillipe Ruston, Department of Psychology at the University of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Internet Essay, 2001. http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.or...icConstruct.pdf Secondary Source (original printed publication): "Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective," by Rushton, J.P., Port Huron, MI, Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000. The data show that the IQ for the average mongoloid is 106, 100 for caucasoids and 85 for negroids. Now do these figures mean anything? Can you even see what they mean in the real world? The answer is yes. Take into account of the state, lifestyles and cultural achievements of the members belonging to those groups. On their own, blacks haven't really achieved much as a race, technologically speaking compared to the caucasoids or mongoloids. In the United States, their murder rate is almost 6 times as high as their white counterparts, which is also a telling sign of a relative lack of intelligence, although their comparably strong inclination towards violence is likely also due to higher levels of testosterone and socioeconomic factors. Caucasoids and mongoloids on the other hand, have achieved a WHOLE lot, technologically, aesthetically and in terms of cultural nuance. Although caucasoids undeniably hold economic dominance over mongoloid nations in the world market at the present moment, that's very likely going to change in the future. And I have little to doubt that intelligence has a lot to do with it. A lot of the reason I believe the mongoloids aren't dominating right now is because of their relative lack of natural resources and their past policies regarding foreign trade. But that's all changing now. In China, the government is seeing how they held their country back by not allowing their businesses to grow and flourish. They're definitely seeing the wisdom in capitalism and they're ready to take full advantage and employ policies that will make them better able to compete with the rest of the world. The world is flattening and technology is evolving at an unprecedented rate. If you are smart and savvy enough to take advantage and be innovative with the technology, you can literally turn nothing into something. And this is exactly why in the past decade China has been able to switch many regions over from agrarian poverty to urban modernity. It's because they have the brainpower to harness and exploit technology to pull themselves out of poverty. I've read some crazy statistic like; there are 1,000 new cars on the road in China everyday. Now let's go back to South Africa. No offense to any blacks reading this, but these guys are so dumb they can't figure out how to use condoms. So much of their plight could be instantly stopped if their collective IQs rose 10 points. But this is the unfortunate reality. And it's not just true in South America. If one simply does a little research, he will find that the same characteristic behavior patterns everywhere negroids exist. Now here is where I'm going with all of this: Intelligence is really important in the large picture. It has a lot to do with how much one achieves, the standard by which he lives, his ability to adapt and his ability to proliferate (I realize there is a lot of evidence to the contrary of the proliferate option) It many ways, it seems obvious to me that smarter equals better. When humans become adept at engineering the genome, I think intelligence should be the first thing we improve in humans because as I said, smarter almost always equals better. Like I suggested, if we could increase the IQ of the negroids by 10 or 20 points, so many problems caused by stupidity could be solved. Why shouldn’t we make ourselves better if we have the power? It seems like a stupid notion not to. I know I could certainly use a few more points myself! Of course precautions should be taken. Have a prototype phase until we implement it on a large scale. When we start creating people with superhuman intelligence (it is going to happen sooner or later), the world and what it means to be human will never be the same. We will finally get to take control. I certainly couldn’t imagine it being any worse than it is.