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.