Right out of the gate the writer makes an assumption that was dealt with in my Psychology 1A course. IQ test such as the Stanford-Binet test are not objective measures of native intelligence, but rather measures of how well people have learned the standard academic curriculum of the time and place the particular test was standardized. So there is still hope!
Well, that didn’t take long: [Click] White House trashes its second plan of the week to lower prescription drug prices. Who could have guessed that the companies who profit from the big markups would object? Or that Trumpets would cave?
Re Stonehenge: So, if one discounts von Danican(sp?) type theories, how did they build it and how did they know it would work as an astronomical observatory and an acoustically superb amphitheater? I have great difficulty getting my head around the concept that they just sort of built it, and all the properties that moderns have found it to have just sort of happened by accident. That doesn't compute. The builders must have known exactly, or at least approximately, what they were doing. So, how did they know?
Trump drops bid to add citizenship question to 2020 census [Click] Hey, what became of the executive order? Did one of his disloyal myrmidons point out to him that it would violate the Constitution? I have no doubt that the Iranian government is cowering in abject fear of his threats…
I wish we could have a Sanders/Warren ticket, but that would never fly because they're both from New England. So I'm guessing the Dems would prefer something like Biden/Harris (old and young, both genders...). What combinations can you envision?
I think the voters largely don't yet know what they would like. For one thing, most of them are just beginning to pay attention; for another they want to see how the candidates do in their debates and campaigning. Biden has barely come under fire, and Harris could be a flash in the pan--COULD, I say. Many voters say they are reluctant to vote for someone in his seventies. I still like the idea of a Warren/Booker ticket, not that I would bet a fiver on it happening.
My first choice, too, is Sanders/Warren, but have rejected it for the same reason. I still like Sanders/Abrams and Warren/Butigicg.
My mother said she's hearing Biden/Harris, at which I made rude noises and told her that ticket would turn off a lot of people, including me. Didn't say it to Mom, but I would be strongly opposed to such a ticket and indeed strongly inclined not to vote for it. Surely, Biden has enough baggage to pull him under? I mean, so he's supposedly affable. We don't need affable. We need smart and forward-looking.
Agreed. OTOH, seems to me there's nothing much to debate vis a vis racism. I mean, it would be a bunch of people standing around agreeing that racism is bad. A climate debate might, potentially, allow each candidate sufficient time to detail his own plan for addressing the climate crisis as well as allowing candidates to conduct a moderately intelligent discussion of those plans. This would be valuable.
But it would never fly for the reasons outlined in the item. Rather than viewing such a debate as an opportunity for measured, substantive debate, too many would seize on it as an excuse to demand "debates" on every possible issue. This is dumb! But it goes to the underlying problem of splintering - smithereening - whereby every conceivable interest group splits away from every other and refuses to cooperate. I've been fretting about this for years, and now it comes to its logical, or illogical, conclusion precluding a potentially valuable debate because allowing it would all but guarantee a slew of meaningless, time-wasting ones.
Let's not forget what _individuals_ are doing on their own. Probably can't do all that's needed without some sort of government intervention, but it's not a crucial as people seem to think.
Has humanity reached ‘peak intelligence’?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190709-has-humanity-reached-peak-intelligence
If this is it, God help us!
DeleteRight out of the gate the writer makes an assumption that was dealt with in my Psychology 1A course. IQ test such as the Stanford-Binet test are not objective measures of native intelligence, but rather measures of how well people have learned the standard academic curriculum of the time and place the particular test was standardized. So there is still hope!
ReplyDeleteWell, that didn’t take long: [Click] White House trashes its second plan of the week to lower prescription drug prices. Who could have guessed that the companies who profit from the big markups would object? Or that Trumpets would cave?
ReplyDeleteWhen Millions Can’t Afford to Retire, the U.S. Needs a Better Option [Click] The authors suggest a tried and true type of program.
Fossil of 99m-year-old bird with super long toes found [Click]
Acoustic study of Stonehenge [Click]
Re Stonehenge: So, if one discounts von Danican(sp?) type theories, how did they build it and how did they know it would work as an astronomical observatory and an acoustically superb amphitheater? I have great difficulty getting my head around the concept that they just sort of built it, and all the properties that moderns have found it to have just sort of happened by accident. That doesn't compute. The builders must have known exactly, or at least approximately, what they were doing. So, how did they know?
DeleteMaybe they paid attention to where they heard echoes?
DeleteTrump drops bid to add citizenship question to 2020 census [Click] Hey, what became of the executive order? Did one of his disloyal myrmidons point out to him that it would violate the Constitution? I have no doubt that the Iranian government is cowering in abject fear of his threats…
ReplyDeleteIncompetence torpedoed Trump's census rigging [Click]
DeleteHoist by his own incompetence, eh? It couldn't happen to a more stable genius.
DeleteA new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds Joe Biden leads the Democratic field nationally with 26% support, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 19%, Kamala Harris at 13%, Bernie Sanders at 13% and Pete Buttigieg at 7%. [Click]
ReplyDelete“Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren raised about $100 million in the last three months combined. Together, they share a large majority of the public support.” [Click]
Looks like the field is getting pretty winnowed already…
I wish we could have a Sanders/Warren ticket, but that would never fly because they're both from New England. So I'm guessing the Dems would prefer something like Biden/Harris (old and young, both genders...). What combinations can you envision?
DeleteI think the voters largely don't yet know what they would like. For one thing, most of them are just beginning to pay attention; for another they want to see how the candidates do in their debates and campaigning. Biden has barely come under fire, and Harris could be a flash in the pan--COULD, I say. Many voters say they are reluctant to vote for someone in his seventies. I still like the idea of a Warren/Booker ticket, not that I would bet a fiver on it happening.
DeleteMy first choice, too, is Sanders/Warren, but have rejected it for the same reason. I still like Sanders/Abrams and Warren/Butigicg.
DeleteMy mother said she's hearing Biden/Harris, at which I made rude noises and told her that ticket would turn off a lot of people, including me. Didn't say it to Mom, but I would be strongly opposed to such a ticket and indeed strongly inclined not to vote for it. Surely, Biden has enough baggage to pull him under? I mean, so he's supposedly affable. We don't need affable. We need smart and forward-looking.
Nice idea, but one thousand is far from an army. [Click] Only a regiment. An army would be tens of thousands. Sherman had 60,000, for instance.
ReplyDeleteWhy a Climate Debate Is a Bad Idea [Click] Hard to disagree with the reasoning, I think.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. OTOH, seems to me there's nothing much to debate vis a vis racism. I mean, it would be a bunch of people standing around agreeing that racism is bad. A climate debate might, potentially, allow each candidate sufficient time to detail his own plan for addressing the climate crisis as well as allowing candidates to conduct a moderately intelligent discussion of those plans. This would be valuable.
DeleteBut it would never fly for the reasons outlined in the item. Rather than viewing such a debate as an opportunity for measured, substantive debate, too many would seize on it as an excuse to demand "debates" on every possible issue. This is dumb! But it goes to the underlying problem of splintering - smithereening - whereby every conceivable interest group splits away from every other and refuses to cooperate. I've been fretting about this for years, and now it comes to its logical, or illogical, conclusion precluding a potentially valuable debate because allowing it would all but guarantee a slew of meaningless, time-wasting ones.
An evaluation of Kamala Harris [Click] Seems fair to me.
ReplyDeleteNice writeup. She still makes me uncomfortable.
DeleteIn fighting cancer, look to what other animals do - Click
ReplyDeleteVegetarian crocodiles once roamed the world - Click
ReplyDeleteCan American states slow global warming on their own? - Click
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget what _individuals_ are doing on their own. Probably can't do all that's needed without some sort of government intervention, but it's not a crucial as people seem to think.
Delete