taks

that's just not right. taks

hehe... you funny. i think the reason nazism is associated with the right is the strict adherence to tradition and german nationalism (which the nazis really wiped out by creating their own history anyway...) actually, as i review the post, he wasn't calling me a nazi. i must take my retort back. no, it was even better, he was calling the moderators nazis. how to gain friends and influence people at its best. not sure why people think a good argument tactic is to call people names. perhaps one day i'll understand the illogic in it? taks

there's a quote steeped in pure logic. uh, hate to tell you, but nazism is socialism - the national socialist german workers party. i get a kick out of people that just don't understand that. if you want to refer to one of us "right-wingers," you need to make a thinly veiled reference to italy and benito mussolini. he was a fascist, which is what right-wing economics is all about. that you would prefer to lob insults as well is hardly a surprise. the least you could do is get it right. taks

exactly where did you get the 1/36th wage? back it up before your "basic mathematics" even have a chance to work. also, just because china's wages are that low does not mean US wages would. part of what happens is that jobs that stay in the country don't cause import/export tariffs and such. i.e. china's wages themselves may be low, but after taking into account the extra expenses, they aren't that much lower. history dictates that capitalism is the only system that creates wealth, so any socialist system will only lead to a lower quality of life. no, if you get the government out of business, explain to me exactly how the elite that control the US? the only reason "greedy capitalists" have any form of control is because the government interferes with the free market. take their influence out, and oila, no more control. again, what you cite here is a problem of a socialist system, not capitalist. uh, sorry, but in a socialist society, everyone gets the same amount, regardless of who they are. you're a bit off on that. you obviously do not understand how capitalism works. first, before you comment, find me ONE monopoly that grew up in a capitalist system without government help. just one. what is this about? whoever said anything about blaming the poor? capitalism in china has nothing to do with the poor in the countryside. they're farmers, divorced from the reforms. they were poor before capitalism showed up, even in the communist system. the entire reason china went with the reforms is because they couldn't afford to pay for those poor-as-jack farmers. i'm not sure where you're going with this one... again, show me an example that didn't have government help. as i've already noted, the gap is actually larger in a socialist system. the problem there is that there is no middle. in a socialist sytem, you cannot climb any higher. not so in capitalism. taks

btw, from an interview with paul cooijman (founder of triple 9 society, glia society, et. al. and a member of mega, which puts his IQ >176) in other words, at the high end of the scale, it is not known what differences there are. that means they still don't understand if there is truly a measurable difference between 140 and 180 and if there it, what impact it has on learning ability. most online tests are good at identifying middle ranges (100 +/-20 or 30), but start to fall apart after that. taks

this has been more of a discussion, really... but i get ya'! probably right here. like i've noted, if a country is naturally rich, even socialist ideas have a bit of a chance, albeit limited. in order for any system to work, you need sufficient resouces or some sort of skill that others need. hate to say it, but desert countries are without hope. they need to move. taks PS: note, however, that the government in norway controls the oil, which is sort of like a socialist country exploiting capitalist means to support itself... ironic. germany does this as well with deutsch telecom (DT, or T-mobile in the states).

well, the people of the US are getting tired of the gobmn't wasting their money. maybe if they could prove that some pork program could be run reliably without so much waste that always accompanies such programs, the public would turn their opinions around. keep in mind, IMO, government waste in these programs is an inherent problem of all socialist based ideas. as a result, i doubt we'll ever see one run "correctly" and, hopefully, the public will continue to be wary. taks

the concept of "multiple intelligences" is not based on anything other than gardner's suppositions. i'll find the links where this is debunked, though i'd leave it up to readers to determine validity. i don't have enough study in this area to formulate a valid opinion (yet). in general, most high IQ experts i've read about tend to think that there really is only one type of intelligence, and the spread among differing ideas is motivated by self-interest. i.e. those with a high IQ in one area (assuming the multiple intelligence idea) really simply have a high IQ and just happen to prefer that one area. taks

no, just one of the cooler ones. certainly more difficult than the mensa online workout. taks

well, yes and no. pattern recognition is the heart of problem solving. that's what IQ measures. it's kinda like an ability to "see" the answer. it is unexplainable in any other terms, IMO. in some cases, you are pretty spot on. there is a difference in someone that can turn in a high IQ and a normal IQ person. really, there is a "why can't you understand this!" sort of difference. they relate to others differently, and it shows. taks

the cool thing about capitalism is that it pays well for in-demand skills. high-end medical professionals are in-demand AND, short on supply. that's why they pay well. as a result, there is heavy competition for schooling and only the best filter to the top. in a socialist system, this is removed. there is no way to guarantee the supply of doctors is sufficient. likewise, there is no way to guarantee there aren't too many. i'd like it too, but it just can't happen in reality. no, there's not enough capital in such an arrangement to guarantee equitability for the higher end... besides, why should anybody have to pay twice for something? you couldn't find a way to distribute the differing levels of care, either. what if a cure for something is available, but too expensive for "the population" and only available to the wealthy? do the people in "the population" just sit back and die? btw, i'm not all-together against government funded emergency care. it is the government's job to protect its people, and some things fall under that bucket. taks

many, but not all, and not the majority. univeral health care in the US typically enjoys a <30% favorability rating. even bush's drug benefit would have lost if it were voted on by the population. taks

actually the opposite is true. should we actually get the government out of the economy, the overall standard of living will improve, resulting in, eventually, less unemployment and more insured workers. health care costs will, by design of the free market, drop, allowing health care for everyone. those that are unfortunately burdened with unemployment will benefit from charity. while what you and walsingham say looks good on paper, it suffers from flaws. first, good christians should also balk at robbing peter to pay paul. charitable donations are not forced, yet it is OK to force people to pay for others' health care? i.e. the idea that it is christian to help others is very true, but the idea that it is forced upon people via threat of criminal liability is not even moral. second, a lot of these problems you (not just you, in general) mention are not problems of capitalism. they are problems of socialism. take away the excess waste of social programs and we all have more money. we all have a better opportunity to spend, which means more jobs, which means more unemployment, which means less people in need of charity, which means... etc. taks

no they don't. they keep people unemployed. jobs that go overseas are jobs that are not held here, regardless of wages. jobs that are not here are $0/hour, so less than minimum wage, and certainly less than the salaries for folks that had low-level salaries and had their jobs shipped to china, india, etc. maybe, maybe not. competition for jobs will benefit those that are willing to work for the market wage. it will keep some jobs here, but others will leave regardless. overall, those countries which produce more than they use will always benefit more than the others, as is particularly the case for oil bearing nations. however, to say that the US will suffer simply because of global competition is a bit short-sighted. if we wanted to stay competitive, obviously much of our current waste would need to be removed from the plan. this is a problem for socialism more than capitalism. in a capitalist market, you can always up your status by working harder or by benefit of some in-demand skill/trade. in a socialist society, everybody is on the same level field except the elite that control the production of goods (and supply of money). there is no middle ground, and no hope of ever being more than your birthright. those poor-as-jack peasants could dip into the free-market well-to-dos with education, or a skill or trade, etc. i.e. they aren't poor-as-jack because of capitalism, they're poor-as-jack because they live on farms in the middle of nowhere and probably have little idea about what's happening in the rest of their country. ah, therein lies the key... the rich only control resources via government intervention. government intervention is, by definition, not capitalist. mixing theories here, blaming capitalism for what amounts to the ills of socialism (or fascism). based on the arguments i've presented above... this last bit is moot. taks

don't ya' think that maybe it pays less because of the system? take away free market competition, and that's what you get: civil servant medical professionals working for government wages. socialist healthcare removes incentives for high-quality doctors. to believe that good people will go into medical professions "for the good of the community" is naive. the bightest will, no matter what system, find what benefits them the most. taks

no. a 40 question multiple choice test with 5 choices per question is supposed to yield less than 8 correct responses... a test designed for avg. IQ probably requires 20 correct answers to yield an IQ of 100... most online tests are bogus, particularly those that provide answers. you want a real one, look for those that require you send in your responses for accurate scoring. these are called prior knowledge tests, and are culturally biased. culture-fair tests shouldn't require anything other than an ability to recognize patterns and think in abstract concepts. IQ really doesn't measure anything other than an ability to see patterns. however, this concept is the basis for ALL problem solving. agreed. taks

btw, reg's fabulous example of scandinavia as a welfare success is a bit disingenous. those countries, by and large, benefit from a trade surplus. i.e. the export more than the import because they have the natural resources to do so. in general, this is not the case for the rest of the world. scandinavia also happens to be blessed with oil, accounting for 50% of norway's exports. i.e. it's easier to fund welfare when you have the rest of the world paying for it through taxes on imports. also, you can't directly compare the 19 million people in scandinavian countries to the 300 million in the US. the larger a population, the harder it is to implement socialist programs... taks

uh, hate to tell you but these things are not a result of capitalism. the reason there is outsourcing is because these other countries do not have protections on wages like we do in the US. protections on wages are a problem of SOCIALISM. capitalism is based on the free market and this goes for wages as well. minimum wage and states like california setting other wage limits on salaried employees is socialism, not capitalism, and the very reason jobs are shopped out. allow market demands to set salaries and there will be no need to outsource. sorry, but you need to get your facts straight. plus, btw, nearly every socialist program has either failed, or is failing. the richest countries in the world are the most capitalist, and the third world countries that are gaining are all implementing capitalist reforms as well (china, for example). as soon as these countries that are gaining ground take steps to protect their trade and wages, they will suffer the same problems as the rest of the world. taks

i tell you what, a sure sign of a losing argument is lobbing insults. if your argument is so good, why do you need to? by the way, look up the phrase "ad-hominem" and see what you find. i knew what that meant, did yoU? but i'm not right-wing. oh there's a good one, where to start... first, exactly how much education do you have? i'm working on a phd, already a BS and an MS, all three in electrical engineering... so, exactly how unintelligent am i compared to you? second, if right-wingers are so unintelligent, why are the top 20% income earners in the US primarily conservative? guess what, these guys are also, not coincidentally, the most educated. i've reported your obvious inability to debate without slinging insults. maybe one of the mods will finally wise up and ban you for consistently violating board rules. how ironic, btw, that you choose to criticize others' logic, while committing fallacies in your own... taks

no. originally, as with stanford-binet, IQ tests were ratios of mental_age/actual_age, i.e. an IQ of 200 is scored by someone mentally twice as old as his actually age. adult tests, however, are based a little differently, noting the deviations i mentioned earlier. the highest possible score on an adult test would be about 200, since statistically, there have not been enough people EVER with an IQ that high to make a valid assessment. i.e. there have been 100 billion people on the planet and, at SD 16, and IQ of 200 would only have yielded a few people EVER with that level of intelligence. this is more than "twice as smart" as someone with a 100 IQ. nearly infinitely smarter would be a better approximation, at least, nearly infinitely more capable of learning. btw, what alanschu says is correct. test makers have to constantly "re-norm" the results of their tests as more and more people take them. it's not so much that we're getting "smarter" (we are, actually), but moreso that they have more data to accurately assess higher intelligences. if only 10 people with 1 in a million IQ have taken a certain test, then the test is not that valid at such levels. most tests, btw, are valid only for the single standard deviation range since, by definition, that's where most people lie... taks

they are all about as legitimate as any high IQ society test. they norm based on sample sizes, so less people means less accuracy. if a million people took a test, and they were a good representation of the population, then only an IQ of maybe 1 in 100k or so is possible to determine (1 in 50k is about a 165 IQ SD 16)... the way it works is really just statistics. the raw score is guaged against everyone. if only 1 in 50k answer 30 out of 40 questions, then that's the 1 in 50k mark... if the average person taking the test scores 10 out of 40, then that's the 100 mark. granted this is a simplified explanation, but close enough for gubmn't work. of course, if everyone that takes a test is already brighter, or dimmer, than the average population, obviously the "norming" will be skewed. the test mensa sends you is only good enough to get an invite to take the real test, which is supervised. of course, all you have to do is show up on test day anyway, so i guess the mailed version is just so you don't waste your time finding out that you wouldn't be able to pass the real test anyway. they use the callet (sic?) test. taks

IQ doesn't typically go up as you age... unless you take a test with a higer standard deviation. in other words, there's nothing wrong (or right) with scoring 136 at 16... most kids tests are 24 SD, while adults tests are 15 or 16 SD, implying tests taken as a child will actually read higher than those taken as an adult. the SD is a measure of how far you are from the mean. in a gaussian curve, 50% are within +/- 1 SD. so an IQ of 124 on a SD 24 test means you are within 1 SD of the mean. this is equivalent to a score of 116 on a test with a SD of 16. the coolest i've seen recently is here. the "ultimate IQ test" is a prior knowledge tests, so people that have not had a college education, particularly math and science based, will not do well. the "culture fair" and "timed" tests, however, are more aligned for general populations, with the former relying solely on sequences and patterns. the "test for exceptional intelligence" is ridiculously hard for most people. even those with a genius IQ (>132 SD 16) will only answer a few correct. this test is designed for those with >150 IQ, and definitely meant to be taken over a long period of time (several days or even a month). taks

do a search on my name and drugs and i'm sure you'll see similar statements. of course, i'd never claim to be 100% correct... i just assume opposing opinions are 100% incorrect! (uh, a joke... since i tend to come off that arrogant...) taks

oh no, strict constitutionalist (er, constructionist), pure capitalist. i love our republic, and i hate what the socialist influences have done to it. closest real political alignment would be libertarian, but most of them are religious (i'm atheist). taks

grrr... messed up the quote. taks