A MATURE adult allows for the fact that he could be wrong about ANYTHING.

What does that say about the posters here?

A mature adult will also admit to believing some things more strongly than others.

Let's play a game. Imagine there exists an omniscient creator. Not the childish megalomaniac depicted in "holy" books but an actual all-knowing designer and initiator of the universe.

Let's further suppose that this creator, who has a wicked sense of humour, invites humans to make even money bets among themselves about their beliefs. Once all the bets have been placed he / she / it will provide definitive answers.

How much would you be willing to bet on the following? You can take either side of the bet. How I'd bet and the amount I would bet are shown in brackets.

--The basic framework of evolutionary theory is correct (YES. I'd bet everything I own plus everything I could borrow)

--A first century itinerant Jewish preacher was God (NO. Everything I own plus everything I could borrow)

--An angel dictated the koran to a seventh century Arabian warlord (NO. Everything I own plus everything I could borrow)

--The theory of global warming caused by human induced rises in atmospheric greenhouse gases is correct (YES. $2,000)

--There are differences in the average level AND in the variability of intellectual abilities between population groups and some of these differences have a genetic component. (YES. $500)

--The preponderance of men in some scientific disciplines has more to do with innate differences between men and women than social conditioning or discrimination. (YES. $500)

--Melbourne will win a grand final before 2020 (NO. $100)

--The Springboks will win the next rugby world cup. (In public I say YES and bet $20. In private I say "NO WAY")

Feel free to make up more bets.

Be careful. I may take some of you up on your bets.

Dear Steve,

The only thing that I would bet 'yes' to on your list is the one about global warming. But, hey - it's your list. And you're entitled to bet on it. My list? Well, let's see:

1) A cure for Cancer will be found within the next five years.
2) The great divide between rich and poor - will narrow.
3) Men and women of conscience - will enter Australian politics.
4) Alternative sources of energy - will be utilised.
5) Water pipelines will bring water into the interior.
6) There will be no more war.
7) Because terrorist impulses ferment in poverty, oppression and ignorance.The elimination of these conditions and the active promotion of a universal respect for human rights will become a priority.

There you have it Steve. Seven bets - by the date 2020. What are my odds?

LOL Foxy,

You've said men and women of conscience will enter Australian politics. You did not say they will get elected. Who decides whether a particular politician is a man or woman "of conscience" anyway?

"Alternative sources of energy - will be utilised."

By that I take it you mean alternatives to fossil fuels. That's happening already. The real question is what proportion of our energy needs will be met from environmentally friendly sources by, say, 2020.

"There will be no more war."

I doubt that. On the other hand I think wars will continue to be mainly localised affairs as has mostly been the case since about 1950. I doubt there will be a war between the world's major powers.

"The great divide between rich and poor - will narrow."

I think that's distinct possibility. In the past 20 – 30 years the size of the global labour force effectively doubled as China, India and Eastern Europe opened up their economies. This sort of positive "supply shock" puts downward pressure on wages.

There are no more supply shocks of comparable size on the horizon. I suspect the dollar wages of Chinese and Indian workers will be subject to a double whammy. They will rise and the both countries will be forced to allow their currencies to appreciate. This will generate increasing demand without concomitant increasing supply of labour. Over time the labour market will tighten again. That usually leads to a rise in wages.

So far as your point (7) goes you may wish to explain this to the likes of Hu Jintao, Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Kim Jong-Il and King Abdullah to name but a few. These are the grand scale serial human right violators.

You have not said how much you will bet.

How much would you bet on a cure for cancer in five years? I may be prepared to take you on for cash on the table now. An independent third party holds the money.

Steve,

1/ Industrial action by unions cripples industry once again (yes $1000

2/ We see an increase of immigration from 3rd world countries (yep $1000

3/ A terrorist strike by Muslims in Australia within 2 years. (Ill bet my left nut on it)

4/ More leftist garbage coming from CJ Morgan ( Crown Jewels)

5/ Another riot coming from sudanese refugees in Melbourne ($2000 and My right nut)

I think Im pretty safe with those bets.

I’ll wager:

The USA will eventually comply with a Kyotoesque Protocol.
BUT when that occurs, and it then comes time to call on China, India, Brazil & co. to make AUDITABLE cuts –we’ll have a real cat-fight on our hands and most of the noble climate-change crusaders
( leastways those in her political domain ) will go-to-ground, ( or, they’ll have other pressing commitments): they’ll have no stomach for haranguing the others as they have the west.

stevenlmeyer

You display more blind faith and ignorance than most.

Dear Steve,

Just to clarify a few points:

1) A cure for cancer will be found within the next five years...
What I'm betting on here is my life. I was diagnosed with cancer
last year.

3) Men and women of conscience will enter Australian politics.
I am refering to people of the calibre of the late Charlie Perkins, Australia's Martin Luther King. It was Charlie who led the 'freedom rides' of the sixties into Australia's equivalent of the American Deep South, chaining himself to the turnstiles of swimming pools that refused to admit black children. Then there's Mick Dodson, one of a group of Aboriginal activists who understands more about white society than it understands itself. He's a lawyer, he was Justice Commissioner, and served on the Royal Commission into deaths in custody. People of the calibre of Maxine McKew...

4) Alternative sources of energy will be utilised ...
Of course I'm referring to more fuel-efficient cars, better built homes, wind turbines, biofuels like ethanol, subsidized rooftop solar panels et cetera.

6) There will be no more war - I remember reading what Richard Perle, a cold-war planner of the Reagan administration in the US had to say, "This is total war.
We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to Afghanistan, then Iraq, this is entirely wrong...we should just wage a total war... our children will sing songs about us years from now..."
I'm betting on sanity - on the re-election of a sane government in the US. One that will listen to its people.

7) Finally, We also need to examine the common use of the term 'we,'
and its appropriation by great power. If we are to fight 'terrorism,'
then we must call on the US to end its terror in the Middle East, Columbia, and elsewhere. Only then can 'we' make the world a safer place.

How much am I betting on this list? Everything I have Steve - for me and for you - because I think we're worth it!

SCOTTY gee your posts thrill me! every time , reminding me of why we dumped your mob, however I will bet you.
$1000 by election 2010 one national system of IR, no side likes it all no side wants it scrapped.

$1000 by that time some extremist unions will be trying to reinvent themselves forgetting the long memory's of those they hurt including ex members they will look for the gentlemen unionists tag.

More Iraq's yes sorry but America will do it again no other option weakness is no option when faced with blind hate.
$10.000 real dollars if you match it Labor has a very clear win in next election.
I like a bet have done so from my 5th birthday these bets are money for jam.

I’ll bet that many of our current folk heroes will shortly be “consigned to the dust bin of history”

Within fives years:
-Maxine McKew, in the absence of the disparate support base of
everything-and-everyone anti-Howard will be just another hack, and will not be re-elected.
- Hugo Chavez, will be seen for what he really is, a petroleum-primed little ponce – and will be long gone.
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ( ditto comment about Hugo Chavez)

Within 50 years:
-Ayatollah Khomeini will be out of fashion , as secularism reclaims his host country
–Martin Luther King ( ditto comment on Khomeini)

Within 500 years:
-And everyone will be able to name their pets Mohammed –even in Sudan – and people will ask who was ‘Mohammed’ ?

A first century Jewish preacher was God? :) mate.. if only you saw the irony of your 'wager'. Let me quote from that Preacher :)

Mark8:34

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.
36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Now lets see... behind those words.. are the following real events:

-Water to Wine
-Walked on Water
-Healed the crippled from birth.(Many witnesses)
-Gave sight to the blind from birth.(many witnesses)
-Enabled the deaf and dumb to hear and speak
-Calmed storms with his word alone.
-Raised the dead.

Pretty impressive stuff you might say..but the TRULY impressive one is this Steven,

In spite of all that 'power'..... He: (from your own Jewish scriptures. Isaiah53)

he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all

and then... rose from death. Halelujah!

I'm sorry to hear about your illness Foxy and I hope you win your bet.

Your point 4) – Agree on the whole except for biofuels. I think they're a BIG mistake.

Horus

I think the US will start reducing GHG emissions. But, as you point out, Not China and India.

Runner wrote:

"You display more blind faith and ignorance than most."

And why is that runner?

Horus

I wish I could agree with you about the seventh century Arabian warlord. However he's been around a while and my guess is he'll still be going strong in 500 years.

However Islam itself may have changed by then. Belief systems do evolve. My favourite example is the Catholic church that burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for heresy in 1600 and today campaigns against the death penalty.

Who's "folk hero" is Hugo Chavez?

Will Castro's executioner, Che Guevarra, still be a "folk hero?" My guess is yes. I think in Che worship we're seeing the birth of a new religion.

There is something about South American wackos that seems to attract airheads. Look at Eva Perron

Will insurance companies inure us against there not being a god?You bet they will,because if there is,you'll only know when you're dead.Result; no payout.

If there isn't,there is no way of disproving an intangible concept that exists on another plane.Still no payout.

The Christians thought they were being smart by having Jesus as the son of god instead of just a meagre prophet.This opens them up to absolute ridicule if facts are ever found to the contrary.It is safer to be a prophet since,who is ever able to dispute a conversation you had with your god.This is where the Muslims have it over the Christians.

Not quite Arjay.... the fact of Jesus being Son of God, is without question only able to be understood in one of 2 ways.

1/ Loony, crackpot invention by desperate lonely pitiable people.

2/ Truth.

On the balance of probabilties.... [with with the opinion of a giant of the legal profession having subjected the evidence to the "rules" of evidence, (Simon Greenleaf) ] is heavily with the 'Truth'.

I'm happy for anyone to challenge this, but only on the basis of the rules of evidence, not some whacky bigoted desperate grasping after secular straws :)

For example, if Christ's messiahship was an invention of men, they would have done a MUCH better job than conjouring up one who will die for mankinds sins. They would have stuck with the 'when ur on a good thing, stick with it' slogan and promoted a HERO type messiah, which the Jews were in fact expecting.

It took a longggg time for Jesus to actually crack the nuts (thick heads) of his disciples and even after telling them 'The Son of man will be killed, yet rise again after 3 days' his followers were discussing who among them was the greatest....which of course attracted Jesus rebuke.

Nope.. the hero's humans invent are Che Guavearas, Fidel Castros, and various others. You know..the guns blazing types.

Jesus was the real (eternal) thing.

stevenlmeyer what is this sexist racist thing of yours?

I'll wager that SCOTTY will be an impoverished eunuch.

I bet the Odds have been Fixed and the "socialist minded" want a tax levied so as to build sheltered workshops for impoverished gamblers.

I dont know anything about sporting activities, but I agree with the first posted list... sort of. How do you measure intelligence? I read a few years ago that on standard tests the Irish come out on top followed closely by the Chinese...
The point you are making, I gather, is that our system of government is seriously flawed. A popularity poll every three years virtually guarantees all important decisions will be made by incompetent idiots and wannabe dictators.
We really do get the goverment we deserve and, lets face it, humans dont deserve even what they've got! If we were renting the planet [which we are in a way] we'd certainly not get our bond back.

ybgirp"A popularity poll every three years virtually guarantees all important decisions will be made by incompetent idiots and wannabe dictators.

We really do get the goverment we deserve and, lets face it, humans dont deserve even what they've got! If we were renting the planet [which we are in a way] we'd certainly not get our bond back."

as Churchill said

"...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

as for being "undeserving of what we have".

If we knew one another, you might know what I was deserving of and I know what you deserved.

Fortunately (for me at least), we do not know one another.

However there remains some differences between us -

1 I acknowledge and respect your right to be wrong.

2 I lack the arrogance to pretend to judge the merit (or otherwise) of your existence.

Col Rouge says: "I acknowledge and respect your right to be wrong."

Is it a universal law of nature that the ones who think they're always right are the most often wrong?

FrankGol “Is it a universal law of nature that the ones who think they're always right are the most often wrong?”

Are you prepared to accept some people are “rightly” born with cerebal palsy?
Do you believe lions and hyenas are “right” to kill zebras?
Was the death of 1/3 the population of Europe through bubonic plague “right”?

Notions of what is “Right” versus what is “Wrong” require some form of moral assessment.

It would be foolish to presume any “universal law of nature” could possibly exist which presumes any form of “moral judgement”.

“Nature” is completely indifferent to what might be considered right and what might be wrong.

Nature and thus “nature's laws”, are like the laws of physics, “morally indifferent”.

I guess, when you find something which thinks it is “wrong” to fall to earth, in accord with the laws of gravity, come tell me.

Yes, FrankGol.... that's a universal rule of nature -- at least I'm sure it would be would be if nature followed rules; or if the universe had been intelligently designed.
Red Neck... oops, sorry, Col Rouge; there is a difference between the generalisation 'humans'; and individual humans. As you may be aware, individual wolves, lions, rats... etc. can make delightful pets and respond in remarkable ways to human contact. However, put them in a pack, herd, pride... and mob rule takes over, submerging the individual. The human animal is no different. It is perfectly rational to like individual humans, even love and respect them -- as I do; however, when discussing such things as human survival and what the human mob/pack/swarm/plague... call it what you will... is doing, then generalisations such as I made in that post are reasonable.

YBGIRP

I absolutely do NOT want to abolish elections. I agree with Churchill's comment, as quoted by Col Rouge.

"...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

COL ROUGE,

For the purpose of this thread I meant "right" and "wrong" in the sense of "correct" and "incorrect." I think I am "right" in saying Melbourne is not going to win a grand final anytime soon. I do not claim any moral superiority for being right in this instance.

J BENNETT

You ask:

"what is this sexist racist thing of yours?"

Is it sexist or racist if I have reasons for believing I am correct?

When it comes to intelligence differences between population groups the ground has shifted. For about 3,000 generations human populations existed in isolation from each other. There was relatively little gene flow between East and West Africa let alone between, say, Northern Europe and South Asia.

During those 3,000 generations we drifted apart genetically in many ways that are now well documented. For example Northern Europeans were the first to domesticate cattle. People who could tolerate lactose had a survival advantage over the lactose intolerant.

Result: People of Northern European origin are less likely to be lactose intolerant than any other population.

So the question you have to answer is this J BENNETT

What magical force kept the evolution of our brains synchronised for 3,000 generations?

And it's no good saying 3,000 generations is not enough. We've already identified genetic alleles that control brain development that were subject to evolutionary pressure in the past 300, not 3,000 but 300, generations.

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Quote:
“There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.”

In the end the science will be what the science will be.

Intelligence is a far cry from lactose intolerance steven.

I must admit I have done a lot more reading on this subject because of our previous discussions, and have found that IQ is far from being resolved in genetic differences between populations. I found something called the "Flynn effect" and there is an article also in the Oct/Nov issue of Scientific American Mind, I think you will find it interesting.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=solving-the-iq-puzzle

And there are others on the web.

To summarise: IQ has been on the increase in each generation averaging about 3 points or so per decade! This effect is not genetic and most likely to be societal and dynamic in nature.

It is clear that as a society we weren't mentally retarded at the turn of last century, but the average American would have scored between 50-70 on a modern IQ test. They have to be recalibrated every now and then.

This effect is seen in every country that has IQ data. IQ tests do not measure intelligence, rather they may measure a weak causal link to intelligence.

I believe that our understanding of intelligence will increase and differences between populations will be understood, however large IQ test differences won't be explained by a difference in the genetics (or the actual intelligence) of these populations, they will be societal and nutritional.

Since I already have kids (and they'll score higher than me on an IQ test that is standardised for todays groups), I'd bet my left nut on it, steven.

BTW, I told you before, stabilising selection is not a "magic force". How do you think that many species of insects and coelocanths have been able to survive for millions of years almost unchanged?

Bugsy

You say: "IQ tests do not measure intelligence, rather they may measure a weak causal link to intelligence."

A variant on that is: IQ tests measure the aptitude that individuals have to do IQ tests. Another is: IQ varies according to what the makers (and users) of IQ tests want them to show.

From the outset, psychologists have 'validated' their IQ tests on other IQ tests or used value preferences to described the IQ-thing that they claim to measure. New and improved IQ tests have been rejected because their results don't conform to previous results. A circular argument develops. IQ tests measure what other IQ tests measure.

Either way, the science is crude, but the outcomes can be devastating for people who take the tests and are judged by the results.

For example: at Melbourne University for many years students were given IQ tests and results were compared faculty-by-faculty. One group of students consistently scored lower than all others, and were rubbished as dummies. Then it was realised that the sort of aptitudes being measured were not the sorts of aptitudes that these students brought to their studies in bucketloads. The tests were tweaked for political reasons and these students were then seen to be comparable to students in other faculties. (If you haven't guessed yet, it was the Music Faculty where many of the students had always been regarded as prodigies throughout their childhood and adolescence, being far superior intellectually - on some abilities - to most students.)

In other words, IQ was re-defined because people objected to the limited definition in vogue.

There is also a long and sorry story about IQ and race that has in recent times been unravelling. Whites doing IQ tests developed by black psychologists have been known to get terribly upset by the cultural bias of many items which throw them off stride.

Actually it gets more complicated than cultural bias Frank, in fact there are certain supposedly "culture free" tests, like Ravens progressive matrices that appear to be increasing IQ at a much greater rate than vocabulary or arithmetic, which have hardly changed at all.

This is likely because of what our society reinforces certain skills that can help to increase those parts of the tests. For example, it's thought that video games can help to develop and reinforce certain spatial skills, eg. block manipulation. Society itself is constantly reinforcing certain aspects, often away from the utilitarian and towards the abstract. In fact, most of ancestors of 100years ago would score exactly as much as the supposedly "sub-average" populations are scoring today.

However, it is quite clear that while IQ test scores are drifting in a certain fashion, it really does depend on what kind of society you are from as to how well you do on these tests. And the test scales are recalibrated every few years because of this drift.

Amazing isn't it? The more I learn about IQ scores, the less I believe that it even correlates very well with real intelligence.

I think I'll put an extra $1000 on that bet steven, since I'm not really interested in gaining another nut.

BUGSY, FRANK,

I am NOT certain of this which is why I'd bet $1,000, not everything I own plus everything I could borrow.

I know about the Flynn effect and have read the Scientific American article you linked.

I don't think IQ scores are as loosely linked to intelligence as you imagine. IQ scores are linked to real world outcomes. On AVERAGE, for example, high IQ people out-earn low IQ people even after adjusting for socio-economic status of the family. It is now pretty well established that in the US high IQ African Americans earn as much as their high IQ white or Asian counterparts.

However IQ tests are a blunt instrument as are ALL examinations. We do need something better, As the cost of fMRI technology drops and the resolution increases we seem to be getting that. My guess is that soon, maybe by 2015, we shall be able to measure brain function the way we measure lung or kidney function today.

When it comes to intelligence and brain function generally we are at the stage of pre-X-ray medicine. We have to guess what's going on inside. fMRI and other technologies are giving us the X-ray capability we need.

To get back to my original point about divergent evolution. We simply do not yet know how many genes are involved in intelligence and how they interact with the environment. What we do know is that the influence of genes on intelligence is non-zero. Give two people optimum nurture and one will emerge smarter than the other.

And we also know that some genes that are involved in brain development have been subject to selective pressure quite recently. For an example see:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1720

All these factors lead me to believe we shall probably, not certainly but probably find differences in "brain function" between populations and this difference will translate into a difference in intelligence.

But I would be the first to admit I could be wrong. We'll just have to wait and seen what happens.

Just to clear something up.

My bet on intellectual differences between population groups, "brain function" differences if you like, is one I'd be happy to lose.

I think the evidence is beginning to point in that direction. For me the evolutionary argument is the most compelling. What did keep the evolution of brains synchronised for 3,000 generations?

But I wish it weren't so.

My hope is to be proved wrong.

But, in the end, the world is under no obligation to be as we would wish it to be.

OK, all you IQ squabblers, here's a thought for you.

Some years ago, I experimented with the commonly used IQ tests, gathering together a collection of them from various public and private sources.

I then went through them, one a day, every day for two weeks.

At the end of those two weeks my IQ had apparently "increased" by more than twenty points. In fact, on reviewing the results, it was clear that in no test had I performed worse than the last one - an unbroken line of progressive improvement

It was a bit like doing cryptic crosswords. The tests use a "language" that becomes increasingly easy to work with as you become familiar with it.

For example, when I began doing the Times crossword, I rarely finished it. Now I can generally complete it within thirty minutes. I haven't become any smarter, just more familiar with the process. This is easily proven by giving me a different style of cryptic crossword, I am instantly back at square one.

IQ tests may be a measure of something, but it most certainly isn't intelligence.

Pericles

No question that practice improves IQ scores. This is a well known phenomenon. It's called "test sophistication." It's one of the reasons I call IQ testing a blunt instrument.

In the US there are actually schools that coach people to do IQ and similar tests such as the SAT and GMAT. They do produce results.

However all test coaches admit that people reach a "saturation" point. Some people saturate at higher levels than others.

So the real test is not what is your IQ score but what is the best you can do after practice.

So how much practice do the Africans get?

Bugsy,

When it comes to comparing intelligence, using current technology, I think inter-country estimates are worthless. The country that was dumb enough to start and lose two world wars turns out to have the highest average IQ in Europe.

If you want to compare the intelligence of different populations you need to match samples by socio-economic background of the parents within the same countries. This has been done extensively in the US. In broad terms the findings are as follows:

Asian Americans score best

Next come Caucasians

Then Hispanic Americans

Then African Americans

I want to stress that this is comparing like with like. We find this when examining samples matched by socio-economic status.

This IQ difference is reflected in school performance which is the cause of some anguish as the following article illustrates.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/12/MNH8T5LTC.DTL

If you look at the table at the bottom of the article you will see that Caucasians and Asian Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds perform at about the same level as Latino and African American children who are not disadvantaged.

Another cause for concern has been the rate at which the children of middle-class African American families drop into poverty.

See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201711.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Quote:

Forty-five percent of black children whose parents were solidly middle class in 1968 -- …. - grew up to be among the lowest fifth of the nation's earners, with a median family income of $23,100. Only 16 percent of whites experienced similar downward mobility.

All this is consistent with the hypothesis that IQ measures something real, something that helps people prosper in modern high technology societies.

I truly wish it weren't so Bugsy. But that's what the research shows to date. Little bits of evidence, none conclusive in themselves, but pointing in the same direction.

Proof?

No.

Indicative?

Yes unless you're in denial

Yet we have a long way to go before we are able to tie these differences down at the level of genomes and brain functions as this New Scientist article illustrates.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19626324.100-intelligence-genes-reveal-their-complexity.html;jsessionid=HMEGFFBJELHG

The IQ paradigm is based on a number of key assumptions which can be depicted as a pair of alternative sequences:

1. IQ and other school assessments identify intellectual capabilities and indicate deficits in some groups.

2. Deficits cause educational 'disadvantage'.

EITHER
3A. These deficits (and the resultant 'disadvantage') are explained by genetic factors - this line of argument ends the debate about merit and all we can do is give the genetically inferior a truncated educational program and 'equality of dignity'.

OR
3B. These deficits are explained by the environment in which students are raised and schooled.

4. If we compensate for the deprived environment, we give the 'disadvantaged' child equal opportunity.

5. This compensation should be aimed at making the 'disadvantaged' child as close as possible to the 'advantaged' child.

6. Success in schools leads previously 'disadvantaged' children to equal access to society's reward structure.

Now every one of these assumptions is dubious and there is sufficient empirical data that challenges their validity.

Human sciences notoriously claim to be objective. But five minutes reflection will demonstrate that they are constructed and operate in such a way as to reinforce the status quo. The IQ industry is a prime example.

The 'science' of IQ has claimed the mantle not only of 'science' but also of neutrality. But the IQ industry exists to give political legitimacy to the existing order which we declare to be a meritocracy. Those who lack 'merit' don't deserve to be given equal access to society's reward structure.

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors about what is going on here steven. Your correlations may be consistent with a hypothesis, but they are also indicative of many societal factors coming in to play. What the genome scanning data are showing us is that there are a great many genes which may responsible for intelligence, on your link only six genes were possibly identified, accounting for only 1% of the variation! extrapolate that out to 600 (which is actually silly, because it will be far more than that, since the most powerful effects were likely already detected), and you have a continuum of genetic effects (or polygenic trait), a perfect situation for stabilising selection to occur (not a magic force). This means that given the natural variation within and between populations, it is unlikely that there has been a strong selection pressure for "intelligence" (or ability to complete IQ tests) that has been able to give the kinds of effects that have been attributed to it across disparate populations.

Your examples of strong selection occurring with lactose intolerance are good examples of single genes with strong effects. It's similar with insecticide resistance or disease resistance, but not anywhere near as complex as polygenic traits.

Societal influences can have a strong effect on any number of these genes, and until we do know what they are and what alleles are present on populations, I think it irresponsible to say (or even indicate) these correlations are due to the genetics between groups rather than just individuals.

Even though you say you may have read Flynn's article, I see no indication that you actually understand it.

I am not in denial over this, the science will be what it will be, but probably not before a lot of jacks have a field day with speculations.

Bugsy, Frank,

We've all stated our positions. There is no point in rehashing all the ground. We'll have to wait and see how the science turns out.

My position is this:

Am I CERTAIN there are differences in the average level and the variability of intellectual abilities between population groups and some of these differences have a genetic component?

Absolutely NOT.

But I do think the evidence points in that direction. On a balance of probability I think that's how the science will turn out. We'll probably know by about 2020.

At this stage none of us can know for certain how the science will turn out. But both of you seems 100% convinced that the answer is "NO."

Under the circumstances either or both of you should be prepared to give me good odds on a real life bet.

So how about it?

What kind of odds would you give me?

Of course at my age there's a distinct possibility I won't be around by 2020 but my heirs can collect my winnings - if any.

Any bets are cash down now with a third party holding the money.

If there is no definite answer by 2020 all parties get their money back with interest.

If either or both of you are on we'll thrash out the details and mechanics.

Yeah, I'll take the bet, but you can stick odds on.

I don;t think that the genetic differences of populations are pointing in that direction at all.

I'd put maybe $2000 on it, it may be enough to buy a beer by the time it's resolved. It won't be 2020, I'd bet even more money on THAT, probably $100000.

I suggest that the problem with taking/making a bet on this is how you are going to judge the result.

So here's my proposal. I'll offer to be the stakeholder, and if the question isn't resolved to the satisfaction of both parties - that is, both have to agree that the evidence one way or another is conclusive - I'll keep the money.

Fair?