Another Virgin Mary Sighting

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Take 100 civil engineers and 100 bricklayers and see if the same intelligence distribution occurs in each group

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of.

again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve.

Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

>Studies on intelligence, from what I can recall, that have occurred
>across races, ethnicities, religions and other demographies have shown
>that intelligence is, in fact, distributed on a normative basis.

That is definitely true. However, the center of all those bell curves are not necessarily the same, even if they all have a similar distribution.

> Egro, being Christian is not ipso facto a predictor of being less intelligent.

See above.

That being said, I don't know if it really matters all that much. Knowing that blacks score half an IQ point lower than whites, or that asians score a point higher, or that christians score a point lower than average - so what? It's a small difference, and the vast majority are still very close to each other in intelligence.

I'm glad you said this... I didn't much feel like elongating my posts further by explaining that the actual mean for different groups on intelligents varies, since this would be misinterpreted by some here to as proof that what I'm saying is wrong.

While intelligence DOES vary from group to group, it is a very neglible variance. However, what some here would likely hear the groups are different.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What we're talking about is YOUR extreme lack of decorum in a public forum. Just b/c something offends your delicate sensibilities (the faith of Catholics) should not give you license to slew venomous garbage about a highly revered person in the faith of over a billion people.

Last time I looked you do not need a license to slew venomous garbage in Speakers Corner. In fact, to complain about lack of decorum here is humorous in itself. For Christ's sake, it seems in some threads half the posts start out with "What the fuck?"

I would think all the sensitive people have already gone elsewhere.

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I do not believe myself to be rancorous. I'm just very direct and honest. I usually keep it very objective and almost never call people bad names. I'm just saying that my experience here is that to expect whatever it is you expect is probably not realistic.

I've never been called rancorous before.

THAT'S BEER!

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Take 100 civil engineers and 100 bricklayers and see if the same intelligence distribution occurs in each group

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of.

again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve.

Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph.

i wasn't claiming they would. re-read my post... w/i their homogeneous group, intelligence will be, as you've acknowledged, distributed normatively. if you want to use compare the intelligence of such disperate careers, you're essentially comparing apples to oranges.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Take 100 civil engineers and 100 bricklayers and see if the same intelligence distribution occurs in each group

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of.

again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve.

Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph.

i wasn't claiming they would. re-read my post... w/i their homogeneous group, intelligence will be, as you've acknowledged, distributed normatively. if you want to use compare the intelligence of such disperate careers, you're essentially comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed. My error. But what is the point of pointing out that within a homogenous group there will be a bell curve. That's not interesting at all. What's interesting is the distinctions between groups, and most importantly finding out the reasons for the difference.

Don't ask me why it is important, it is too late in the day for that. Must go now. Good thread. Thanx.

don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and tasteless topics, are not suppressed.

x

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What we're talking about is YOUR extreme lack of decorum in a public forum. Just b/c something offends your delicate sensibilities (the faith of Catholics) should not give you license to slew venomous garbage about a highly revered person in the faith of over a billion people.

Last time I looked you do not need a license to slew venomous garbage in Speakers Corner. In fact, to complain about lack of decorum here is humorous in itself. For Christ's sake, it seems in some threads half the posts start out with "What the fuck?"

I would think all the sensitive people have already gone elsewhere.

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I do not believe myself to be rancorous. I'm just very direct and honest. I usually keep it very objective and almost never call people bad names. I'm just saying that my experience here is that to expect whatever it is you expect is probably not realistic.

I've never been called rancorous before.

THAT'S BEER!

What's your pleasure, I'd be happy to spring for it!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Take 100 civil engineers and 100 bricklayers and see if the same intelligence distribution occurs in each group

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of.

again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve.

Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph.

i wasn't claiming they would. re-read my post... w/i their homogeneous group, intelligence will be, as you've acknowledged, distributed normatively. if you want to use compare the intelligence of such disperate careers, you're essentially comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed. My error. But what is the point of pointing out that within a homogenous group there will be a bell curve. That's not interesting at all. What's interesting is the distinctions between groups, and most importantly finding out the reasons for the difference.

Don't ask me why it is important, it is too late in the day for that. Must go now. Good thread. Thanx.

don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and tasteless topics, are not suppressed.

x

Oh, I certainly agree that it's far more interesting to try and discern why there are diffs b/t groups... however, the pt in this pedestrian excercise was just to show that the general intelligence of Christians is roughly similar to the general population and not skewed to the low end, nor is it a bi-modal distribution, etc.

tis all.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Pity the atheist who is grateful but has no one to thank.

Also: Who do atheists talk to during sex??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Everon 0]

Quote

Most religions, and certainly all the big organized ones, do not allow for critical thinking about their beliefs. They used to burn people for it, or at least jail them for life. They do not do that anymore, but it still pisses them off that a disciplined approach to discovering the true nature of the Universe came along after they had already posted all the answers

Indeed they have simmered down a bit. Now they only want to force mythology into the science curriculum or have a perfectly legitimate branch of science banned from being taught. Their obsessive compulsion to control and in some cases dehumanize certain groups of people will never materialize in the scientific community.

Quote

Quite the coincidence you mention one of my favorites of all time. I was just reading about Bogey this morning.

Is that a Miracle?

Coincidence I'm sure.

[jakee 1,551]

Quote

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I find it tremendously amusing that you get so bent out of shape over someone making a joke about one of your pet symbols yet have obviously gone out of your way to try and offend people with your sig line.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Take 100 civil engineers and 100 bricklayers and see if the same intelligence distribution occurs in each group

actually, you will see a bell curve, a normative distribution for intelligence for the 100 CEs and 100 bricklayers you spoke of.

again, intelligence, like heighth, is naturally distributed that way, even among homogenious groups such as in your example. Now, the group of 100 CEs or 100 bricklayers will not be as widely dispersed (i.e. the standard deviation will be smaller), but you'll still get a bell shaped curve.

Both will yield a bell-shaped curve, but they will not share the same horizontal location on your graph.

i wasn't claiming they would. re-read my post... w/i their homogeneous group, intelligence will be, as you've acknowledged, distributed normatively. if you want to use compare the intelligence of such disperate careers, you're essentially comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed. My error. But what is the point of pointing out that within a homogenous group there will be a bell curve. That's not interesting at all. What's interesting is the distinctions between groups, and most importantly finding out the reasons for the difference.

Don't ask me why it is important, it is too late in the day for that. Must go now. Good thread. Thanx.

don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and tasteless topics, are not suppressed.

x

I think I made the same mistake responding to rehmwa. I thought he was alluding to all homogenous groups falling on the SAME curve. I now take it that he meant any homogenous group will take the shape of A curve.

Nevermind.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I find it tremendously amusing that you get so bent out of shape over someone making a joke about one of your pet symbols yet have obviously gone out of your way to try and offend people with your sig line.

The original comment about Mary that was offensive was NOT a joke, I believe, although it was couched as "humor."

As for my sig line, it's a shame that the only way you can interpret it is as offensive. I guess that's the lense through which you see. There is actually a much different way to read that statement. I'm sorry you don't see it. It isn't at all meant to offend.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kallend 2,093]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I find it tremendously amusing that you get so bent out of shape over someone making a joke about one of your pet symbols yet have obviously gone out of your way to try and offend people with your sig line.

The original comment about Mary that was offensive was NOT a joke, I believe, although it was couched as "humor."

As for my sig line, it's a shame that the only way you can interpret it is as offensive. I guess that's the lense through which you see. There is actually a much different way to read that statement. I'm sorry you don't see it. It isn't at all meant to offend.

The offensive sig is the one that suggests anyone who does not believe in the same mythical being as the writer cannot be a good person.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I find it tremendously amusing that you get so bent out of shape over someone making a joke about one of your pet symbols yet have obviously gone out of your way to try and offend people with your sig line.

The original comment about Mary that was offensive was NOT a joke, I believe, although it was couched as "humor."

As for my sig line, it's a shame that the only way you can interpret it is as offensive. I guess that's the lense through which you see. There is actually a much different way to read that statement. I'm sorry you don't see it. It isn't at all meant to offend.

The offensive sig is the one that suggests anyone who does not believe in the same mythical being as the writer cannot be a good person.

If you're referring to my sig line, you're reading an awful lot into it, Far more than what it actually says... which is that we should feel sorry for those who don't know of the God to whom they should direct their gratitude.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kallend 2,093]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I find it tremendously amusing that you get so bent out of shape over someone making a joke about one of your pet symbols yet have obviously gone out of your way to try and offend people with your sig line.

The original comment about Mary that was offensive was NOT a joke, I believe, although it was couched as "humor."

As for my sig line, it's a shame that the only way you can interpret it is as offensive. I guess that's the lense through which you see. There is actually a much different way to read that statement. I'm sorry you don't see it. It isn't at all meant to offend.

The offensive sig is the one that suggests anyone who does not believe in the same mythical being as the writer cannot be a good person.

If you're referring to my sig line, you're reading an awful lot into it, Far more than what it actually says... which is that we should feel sorry for those who don't know of the God to whom they should direct their gratitude.

No, I'm referring to another Christian poster on here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

think I made the same mistake responding to rehmwa.

No, you made a much different and more simplistic mistake. But if you want to discuss statistical analysis sometime, let's at least do it over a couple drinks at the pool - the subject is pretty tiring, and, as I said originally, polling analysis is designed to allow bias for the pollsters. As I said, colinearity is a bitch - whether you are talking regression or correllation.

edit: and I do think that hunk of chocolate looks mostly like a turd.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well pardon me for thinking it a worthy cause to expect people to actually at human.

I'll try to remember to not waste any energy encouraging people like yourself to make this place any less rancorous.

I find it tremendously amusing that you get so bent out of shape over someone making a joke about one of your pet symbols yet have obviously gone out of your way to try and offend people with your sig line.

The original comment about Mary that was offensive was NOT a joke, I believe, although it was couched as "humor."

As for my sig line, it's a shame that the only way you can interpret it is as offensive. I guess that's the lense through which you see. There is actually a much different way to read that statement. I'm sorry you don't see it. It isn't at all meant to offend.

The offensive sig is the one that suggests anyone who does not believe in the same mythical being as the writer cannot be a good person.

If you're referring to my sig line, you're reading an awful lot into it, Far more than what it actually says... which is that we should feel sorry for those who don't know of the God to whom they should direct their gratitude.

But that is what does bother, and yes, even offends some people. That feeling sorry bit. A buddy of mine who's wife found God rather suddenly got into that with me. She was very regularly telling people how sorry she felt for them. That is so condescending. I don't want anybody's pity, especially for my beliefs.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

I've never been called rancorous before.

THAT'S BEER!

What's your pleasure, I'd be happy to spring for it!

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

I've never been called rancorous before.

THAT'S BEER!

What's your pleasure, I'd be happy to spring for it!

Grolsch, and when available, in red.

Someday maybe, heh?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

think I made the same mistake responding to rehmwa.

No, you made a much different and more simplistic mistake. But if you want to discuss statistical analysis sometime, let's at least do it over a couple drinks at the pool - the subject is pretty tiring, and, as I said originally, polling analysis is designed to allow bias for the pollsters. As I said, colinearity is a bitch - whether you are talking regression or correllation.

edit: and I do think that hunk of chocolate looks mostly like a turd.

(In Chevy Chase Caddyshack tone):

Well, there's the pool, . . . or the creek. The creek would be good for you.

And what hunk of melty dripping chocolate doesn't look like a turd. Everything was just returning to civility and you mention the T word again.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

think I made the same mistake responding to rehmwa.

No, you made a much different and more simplistic mistake. But if you want to discuss statistical analysis sometime, let's at least do it over a couple drinks at the pool - the subject is pretty tiring, and, as I said originally, polling analysis is designed to allow bias for the pollsters. As I said, colinearity is a bitch - whether you are talking regression or correllation.

edit: and I do think that hunk of chocolate looks mostly like a turd.

(In Chevy Chase Caddyshack tone):

Well, there's the pool, . . . or the creek. The creek would be good for you.

And what hunk of melty dripping chocolate doesn't look like a turd. Everything was just returning to civility and you mention the T word again.

doooodie!!!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[pirana 0]

Quote

grolsch comes in red? I've been missing out! I love grolsch! someday, perhaps, the grolsch (without pity) is on me!!!

Usually available about now thru the Holidays. I asked the liquor store manager why just in the fall. He said even though it is not a bock, but a red beer, most people think of red as bock, so demand for it outside of fall is almost nil. So they only carry it in fall here even though it is produced year round. I rarely drink beer outside of skydiving season, so I'm going to try to get him to carry it beginning in April next year.

It IS one scrumdilly-icous brew.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

grolsch comes in red? I've been missing out! I love grolsch! someday, perhaps, the grolsch (without pity) is on me!!!

Usually available about now thru the Holidays. I asked the liquor store manager why just in the fall. He said even though it is not a bock, but a red beer, most people think of red as bock, so demand for it outside of fall is almost nil. So they only carry it in fall here even though it is produced year round. I rarely drink beer outside of skydiving season, so I'm going to try to get him to carry it beginning in April next year.

It IS one scrumdilly-icous brew.

so is it the exact same beer except for the coloring?

all my friends don't like it b/c of the "skunky" smell... fine by me, more for me to consume!

and I love the bottles!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[rehmwa 2]

Mmmmmm - beer, turds

careful, a moderator might split this off into a separate thread in bonfire

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,551]

Quote

As for my sig line, it's a shame that the only way you can interpret it is as offensive. I guess that's the lense through which you see. There is actually a much different way to read that statement. I'm sorry you don't see it. It isn't at all meant to offend.

C'mon man, pity? Thats right up there with contempt. In fact I'm not sure if there is any other word so good at conveying a sense of superiority. Now imagine if, say, kallend said he pitied people who don't have the benefits of his extensive education? He'd get buried and you know it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?