pouët.net

Sorry, but you're full of shit. Most of my life has been spent in Canada and the first I've ever heard about Canadians complaining about the US "hijacking the term" American is from you in this very post.

Thom: Well, you're a Canadian, I don't know why they'd bitch to you that you were using the term American incorrectly. Especially with your stance that you're NOT one. That seems pretty darned silly, now, doens't it?

adok, your statement is bare of any logic. it's like saying that because schizophrenia is hereditable, and shizophrenics have a higher suicide rate, suicidal tendencies are hereditable.

Adok,

Let k, k' be sets of genes in K (allowed sets of genes)
Let iq be a measurement on a born human over the age of 8
Let g be the measurement that gives out a human's genes

For all allowed combination of sets of genes g, the starting hypothesis (lest we'll be doing a tautology) are:



There is a set of gene k', such that:



And from this, you want to claim that:

g, environment => human => iq(human)

I got to tell you, you didn't really need to use down-syndrome or genetics to say that, since that's pretty much already scientifically supported that a person is a product of its genes and environment.

But you are saying something about iq, the measurement function, whereas what that fellow must have been talking about is IQ, the result of this measurement. Some people are lame when born as a result of a birth defect, some others get hit by a train.

What you did not read correctly was the original claim:

Let's consider h1, h2 two humans with g (h1) = k1 and g(h2) k2 having a baby h' with genes k' (combinations of k1 and k2)

You, and science say that:

iq (h' (k', environment)
iq (h' (combination of k1 and k2, environment))

What this Leon Kamin is saying is that there is no relation between the three following measurements

iq (h1)
iq (h2)
iq (h')

That you can't predict iq (h') from iq (h1) and iq (h2)

And your example did nothing to disprove that.

Thank you.

Ah, my bad actually it's pretty hard to know what this Leon Kamin is saying anyway. And they use a term, heritability which does not seem to talk about inheritance. Way to go! I don't intend to be a sociologist

Mr. Truck: Fact is, for nearly a century Canada has defined itself as "not being American." This never changed after 9/11. Same old story as ever before. Take for example the "Joe Canadian" ads, which first aired in the 1990's, before your much touted 9/11 incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_Canadian

Canada has for a long time had the inane habit of identifying itself by what it is not (the USA) as opposed to what it is. And it is a *much* discussed issue inside Canada. After all, wouldn't it be better to describe oneself by what the are, not what one isn't?

(Here's the lame ass ad, for those not in the know. It is, sadly, a beer commercial... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7466442083227549651

And, yeah, this first aired several years before 9/11.

Thom: You're full of shit. That's the first time I've heard of this.


(:

"Because schizophrenia is hereditable, and schizophrenics have a higher suicide rate, suicidal tendencies are hereditable": Yes, exactly! What's wrong with that? IMHO this is a correct logical conclusion.

BTW - it doesn't make a difference to my and your points of view, but actually your analogy is a bit unfitting. While schizophrenia only means a higher risk of the patient committing suicide, Down syndrome always comes along with mental retardation. It's not just like the chance of being mentally retarded is higher. Mental retardation is one of the constitutional symptoms of Down syndrome.

While the reasons for the suicidal tendencies in schizophrenia may be partially of sociological nature (as schizophrenics feel repelled by non-schizophrenic people), mental retardation in people afflicted with Down syndrome is biological. While schizophrenics might be less suicidal if they were living in an isolated community consisting of schizophrenic people only, people afflicted with Down syndrome will always be mentally retarded, even if they are living in an isolated environment. (Of course I know that suicidal tendencies in schizophrenia are not only for sociological reasons but also for disruptions in the neuro-transmitter household so they are at least partially biological - which actually just backs up my point of view that suicidal tendencies are hereditable.)

I think his argument against that was the following. (Very generalized to show my point)
Assume that 1% of the population are schizophrenic, and 50% of the schizophrenics will commit suicide. Then assume a total of 5% of the population will commit suicide, of which all except the schizophreniacs will do it because of non-hereditable causes. Tht means a majority of those whi will commit suicide will do it from non-hereditable causes. This an example of why the argument ("Because schizophrenia is hereditable, and schizophrenics have a higher suicide rate, suicidal tendencies are hereditable") is flawed.
Don't get this wrong. It might very well be that most people in reality do it because of hereditable causes, what I just wrote is just that the argument is not a way of proving that.

Rewritten like this:

Some schizophrenics inherited their schizophrenia.
Schizophrenics tend to commit suicide at a higher rate.

Therefore, a proporition of suicides may come from inherited attributes.

Erm!

Knos: OK, I see your point. From the assumptions "Some schizophrenics inherited their schizophrenia" and "Schizophrenics tend to commit suicide at a higher rate", the conclusion "Therefore, a proportion of suicides may come from inherited attributes" may be deduced, but the conclusion "Therefore, a proportion of suicides come from inherited attributes" is invalid. But dipswitch didn't say that only some schizophrenics inherited their schizophrenia. He said "schizophrenia is a hereditable disease". This could also mean that all schizophrenics inherited their schizophrenia.

aika vitun siistiä

He must be right - he's got a decent handle.

haha ;)

And once again Adok took over the thread, starting at the second page. \o/ Is there something like a law (Godwin's extended law maybe)?

Ok Adok, let's move on with logics. Let's take two quotes from one and the same person: What's your conclusion?

Jonk: Ah, I see you've found that wikipedia article I was searching for. Sadly I haven't found, I only remember there was an edit in late 2004 stating the demoscene in the U.S. is quite underground compared to Europe, where they have more than 70 parties ...

Besides the varios good hints here's my one: Do it like affinity: As soon as it's not a pain in the ass to compete with others, you'll start being productive.

It's unbelievable how quickly a topic can be forgotten on Pouet. American demoscene ? ... hum ?.
Anyway, I have about 570 US musicians on Amiga Music Preservation. All right, most are not active anymore, but for example I have only 60 or so Russian and about 130 in Spain.
Just to come back on topic .. if only a little bit.

I'd rather look for graphicians/graphic designer, myself. And *involved* graphicians and musicians, instead of people you take the work of.

When almost all the french graphicians left, the scene here became moribund.

Seriously: Yes, it's possible that there may be a law, because this not only happens at pouet. Anytime I post anything to any thread in any Net-based forum, I become the center of attention, and the rest of the thread revolves around my statements. Note that this has not been my observation, but others have told me! I'm now just re-telling what they've said.

It's because you are an attention whoring, pretentious DICK! THAT'S WHY! And you pay little to no attention to what has been said and just start stating your own retarded rants.

Fact is, I can scream what I want, you will not read it or just ignore it..

adok, center of attention on Net-based forums? that role, by definition, belongs to trolls.

Seriously. Adok: What's your conclusion?

BTW... That NULL is defined as s^-2 :)

@okkie
Now please tell me, when and where have you felt ignored by me?

@xernobyl
My conclusion is that apparently have the ability of writing things that match other people's interests. I'm apparently a kind of opinion leader / trend setter.

THE MIGHTY ADOK TOLD ME THAT I HAVE THE POWER!!!

OBEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

;)

xernobyl: I could make you a minister in my government if you like ;)

claus: not the whole prophet thing again. please, we had enough. you need to socialize more with the common people man, this is getting embarassing.

ppl are replying to you couz you're beeing annoying not trendy. step out of the plate already. participate in discussions not related to iq measurements and hugi diskmagazine for a change.