ACCOUNTABILITY

Ken Cangi wrote: Tony, This is why I usually paste people's quotes. Your first draft of this post listed just the information. It almost seemed as though you were trying to be constructive. Then I went into the other room to have a cup of tea, and returned to find out that you are still the same old Tony. When you get your feelings hurt, you act like a troll. Your childish behavior overshadows anything valuable that you might have to say. If they gave out EMQs (Emotional Maturity Quotient), yours be be somewhere in the 70s.

The do have EIQ's (Emotional Intelligence Quotients), but it's not as well accepted and normalized as IQ becuase it is less tangible. They also have tried to develop Social Intellignece Quotients. Part of these tests is correct perception and assesment of the emotional states of others. I very seriously doubt that my score would be -1.5 sigma... But I've never heard of one designed to work on internet posts so perhaps that is how it would be judged as such.

By the way, my feelings are not hurt. It just disturbs me intellectually to see so much misinformation or "kinda" right information printed in a diatribe about how everyone else's a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But that does not mean that what I posted was not supposed to be informative... there was just more than one sort of information there.

Perhaps I should care less about what you have to think or say- in that respect, it would be more mature of me to care less. You are no doubt correct. I do find that many of my comments are horizontal, meaning directed publically rather than toward you. Perhaps I am subconsciously concerned that what either you or I have to say actually influences a public opinion, about this matter or about our images. But reading these other posts, it is plainly clear that there are mostly very educated people here (like Richard R) who already know what they need to know to formulate a very realistic and pragmatic response. So, that said, you are correct that I shoudl say less. I've posted plenty!

Now, as far as this issue goes, as soon as you were more clear in your 'fullest extent of the law' statement and clarified that you did not mean max sentance at the max charge, I didn't see a huge difference in our opiions, other than that I thought you were too hard-lined about it, for a guy who does not have all the facts.

Of course I am the same old Tony. I have a fairly singular personality. Most people would even say I am predictable, which I regard as a good thing. Try to look at my posts as intellectual responses and not emotional responses, and you'd be 20 paces closer to understanding me. I score -49 (range is from -50 to 50) on the MB Thinking-to-feeling scale. I'm a very non-emotionally-reactive and very intellectual person.

Tony Bubb wrote: The do have EIQ's (Emotional Intelligence Quotients), but it's not as well accepted and normalized as IQ becuase it is less tangible. They also have tried to develop Social Intellignece Quotients. Part of these tests is correct perception and assesment of the emotional states of others. I very seriously doubt that my score would be -1.5 sigma... But I've never heard of one designed to work on internet posts so perhaps that is how it would be judged as such. By the way, my feelings are not hurt. It just disturbs me intellectually to see so much misinformation or "kinda" right information printed in a diatribe about how everyone else's a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But that does not mean that what I posted was not supposed to be informative... there was just more than one sort of information there. Perhaps I should care less about what you have to think or say- in that respect, it would be more mature of me to care less. You are no doubt correct. I do find that many of my comments are horizontal, meaning directed publically rather than toward you. Perhaps I am subconsciously concerned that what either you or I have to say actually influences a public opinion, about this matter or about our images. But reading these other posts, it is plainly clear that there are mostly very educated people here (like Richard R) who already know what they need to know to formulate a very realistic and pragmatic response. So, that said, you are correct that I shoudl say less. I've posted plenty! Now, as far as this issue goes, as soon as you were more clear in your 'fullest extent of the law' statement and clarified that you did not mean max sentance at the max charge, I didn't see a huge difference in our opiions, other than that I thought you were too hard-lined about it, for a guy who does not have all the facts. Of course I am the same old Tony. I have a fairly singular personality. Most people would even say I am predictable, which I regard as a good thing. Try to look at my posts as intellectual responses and not emotional responses, and you'd be 20 paces closer to understanding me. I score -49 (range is from -50 to 50) on the MB Thinking-to-feeling scale. I'm a very non-emotionally-reactive and very intellectual person.

There are one or two comments that I question, although I don't feel the need to point them out. Lets just move on. I had a great afternoon up at Der Zerkle, and I'm just in too good a mood to discuss statistics or this rock thrower's bad luck, right now.

Richard Radcliffe wrote:if "weed is less likely to cause many of the problems associated with alcohol", why is it, in fact, a schedule 1 drug and alcohol is not?

Richard,

I hope you are not suggesting that weed warrants its current classification. You seem far too intelligent for that.

Marijuana was legal for several thousand years until the early 1900s, when the Mormon church noticed some of its flock bringing it back over the border. I guess the fathers on the hill figured that it would be kind of difficult to spread their dogma with a bunch of stoners in their congregation, so they outlawed it. That followed by fanatical, medical reports of savage behavior associated with weed's use opened the door for career opportunists like Harry Anslinger to push legislation to make it illegal.

Its schedule 1 classification - I believe - has little to do with inherent danger and much to do with governmental expedience. One of the criteria for schedule 1 drugs is that they have no medical value. Marijuana has already been proven to reduce nausea in AIDS and Cancer patients, prevent Epileptic seizures, and reduce the chronic pain associated with a myriad of injuries and medical conditions. And the argument that it is a gateway drug really makes me chuckle. I have numerous friends who have smoked weed for decades and never advanced to stronger drugs. Several of them own highly successful companies. Any substance can be a gateway drug if you have an addictive personality. Some people get addicted to Big Gulps.

I smoked only on rare occasions when I was a teenager, and then never touched the stuff again until three seasons ago. I had spinal surgery, following a ski accident, and I smoked it heavily, everyday for four months, to relieve severe pain. As soon as the pain was gone, I stopped smoking it, and i haven't had the urge to since. It had a calming and pain relieving affect, and nothing adverse except for the smoke inhalation, which is why I don't smoke it now.

Ken Cangi wrote:I hope you are not suggesting that weed warrants its current classification.

That, Ken, is my entire point. My intent was not to argue for or against the current laws regarding weed, alcohol, or anything else. It was simply to point out the arbitary nature of some of these laws.

Despite the anecdotal evidence that you mention which suggests that weed is not so bad, in fact some proportion of pot-smokers do have serious problems with the drug. This is also true for alcohol; i.e., the majority of people who drink will not have many problems with it throughout their lives, but some proportion will have serious problems (~9-10% of US adults). So where does that leave us?

Richard Radcliffe wrote:That, Ken, is my entire point. My intent was not to argue for or against the current laws regarding weed, alcohol, or anything else. It was simply to point out the arbitary nature of some of these laws.

I can tell that you are partial to that premise, although I find nothing arbitrary about a law that exists for the primary purpose of securing the existence of the drug enforcement "industry".

Richard Radcliffe wrote:Despite the anecdotal evidence that you mention which suggests that weed is not so bad, in fact some proportion of pot-smokers do have serious problems with the drug. This is also true for alcohol; i.e., the majority of people who drink will not have many problems with it throughout their lives, but some proportion will have serious problems (~9-10% of US adults). So where does that leave us?

Not so anecdotal, Richard, unless you dispute non-governmental studies like this one. I also read somewhere that one in thirteen people in the U.S. abuses alcohol. If so, then your numbers are slighty inflated. In any event, under 10% is not a problem to me, because that means that more than 90 percent of the population functions normally in that regard.

Ken Cangi wrote:Not so anecdotal, Richard, unless you dispute non-governmental studies like this one.

I'm not sure how this "non-governmental" study contradicts what I said: that there is "some proportion of pot-smokers [who] do have serious problems with the drug".

(BTW, most of the studies cited by that web site were almost undoubtedly funded by the NIH: i.e., big brother.)

Ken Cangi wrote:In any event, under 10% is not a problem to me, because that means that more than 90 percent of the population functions normally in that regard.

So I guess the real question is, when does the government step in to protect us from ourselves? If only 10% (8% if you accept the 1 in 13 figure) are affected, maybe we should just let it go. The problem is that it's not so simple with alcohol. The few tend to have a fairly strong impact on the many: stress to the health care system, economic loss from many alcohol abuse-related issues, personal tragedies to friends and relatives of alcoholics, personal tragedies to completely "innocent" bystanders...

In a way, this brings us back to the original question: that of accountability. To what extent should the government "facilitate" accountability, whether we're talking about a drunk driver or a rock-throwing numskull? Will it serve any purpose to "make an example" out of the numskull? Will that change the behavior of future trundlers?

Richard Radcliffe wrote:In a way, this brings us back to the original question: that of accountability. To what extent should the government "facilitate" accountability, whether we're talking about a drunk driver or a rock-throwing numskull? Will it serve any purpose to "make an example" out of the numskull? Will that change the behavior of future trundlers?

Of course it serves a purpose. Prosecuting these cases helps to determine who is an actual threat to society as opposed to someone who just made a mistake. Being made an example of is just a byproduct of his being prosecuted, and only applies if he is convicted.

BTW, comparing a drunk driver to this rock thrower is a quantum stretch. You know what you are doing when you drink and drive. The minute you get behind the wheel to drive yourself to the bar, you are conscious of the inherent risk and consequences associated with your decision.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: I'm not sure how this "non-governmental" study contradicts what I said: that there is "some proportion of pot-smokers [who] do have serious problems with the drug". (BTW, most of the studies cited by that web site were almost undoubtedly funded by the NIH: i.e., big brother.)

Richard, you are correct, and in fact there have been found to be correlative relationships between the first-time effects of pot on users and the level of habbit-forming behaviour or addiction. Some people, particularly those who get the very bright hallucinogenic effects from pot use, tend to get very hooked on it. This is however a small percentage of the user-group. (I chose the word hooked because the word addicted has become to politicized and has strongly different defintions to different people.)
With alcohol it is the D3 receptor (a genetic varriant- a Dompamine receptor)- and seems to correlate to alcoholism, even before the user has ever consumed it. This is perhaps not the latest news, but it was well known 'old news' even in the 90's.
FMRI studies (read about them in perhaps 2005) have shown that the physiological brain structures of violent criminals are different, on average fromt eh standard population... Particularly with those associated with their ability to cope with emotional stress and delay emotional responses.
This of course raises the question of true culpability and who is or is not responsible for their actions. It seemed like a huge debate in the research world. Starting with the nature/nurture arguement and moving into accountability...

Nothing new there. In the early 1990's, when I was participating in psychology reasearch at the university there were studies you could not get past a review board, let alone funded, because nobody wanted to deal with the answers and their political or social implications. That seems to have eased quite a bit when it comes to gender-related research, but last I knew still forbid a lot of race oriented questions... Then again, my Prof./Advisor (Denise Driscoll) for my research is no longer an advisor- she's head of racial diversity programs at the same university... so I guess I should have known her slant on things back then.

Just say no...

Richard Radcliffe wrote:Just say no...

Too bad. I had an ice cold Fat Tire bomber and a chubby sitting here with your name on it.

No wait a minute! That's not what I meant!

Tony Bubb wrote:"The average IQ in the United States is 100. Normal or average intelligence is 90-110. I don’t know if the mean takes into account standard deviation, so, based on the number 100 alone, more than half of the U.S. population possesses average to above average intelligence. This means that most people are not stupid." ... Well, what would be your reaction if I told you that the "100" is a normalized score... whereas the average is always 100... even if the average drops 15 points? ...Should we let it bug us that if it were not normalized, that people now would be scoring in the mid-to-high 80's on average (based on normalized scores from the 1980's)... Keep in mind that 13.3 points is a standard deviation, which is why genious is defined as 140 and retarded is defined as 60 - both are 3 sigma numbers. Point being, 50% of all people are now as dumb as the bottom 16% or so were less than 30 years ago.

That conclusion: "...now as dumb as..." is just totally absurd. The only conclusion we can draw from variations in raw scoring is that most people score lower on whatever test is used. So what. Even if the test is unaltered, cultural factors evolve with time. Are you even sure what "dumb" means?

rmsusa wrote: That conclusion: "...now as dumb as..." is just totally absurd. The only conclusion we can draw from variations in raw scoring is that most people score lower on whatever test is used. So what. Even if the test is unaltered, cultural factors evolve with time. Are you even sure what "dumb" means?

I guess I could have said "unintelligent."

So, now I am curious... What is the latest news on how 'cultural factors' effect IQ scores? Is there data beyond the typical devil's advocate doubt of the scoring system?
I can tell you what I know- that identical twins end up closer to their birth parents and to each other even if separated at birth than they do to their 'adoptive' brothers, sisters, or parents. IQ is related in at least some large part to the X chromosome, as the IQ of a son is more related to their mother than to their father, but daughters are almost equally correlated to both birth parents.
Knowing this, it has always been presumed that one driving factor is that people with higher IQ's are having fewer children than those at the lower end of the scale. It seems that it is being bred out. Personally, I also suspect that drug and alcohol use/abuse during pregnancy are taking a heavy toll, commonly enough to effect statistics.

A well accomplished psychiatrist ex-boyfriend of mine gave me a couple of different IQ tests to take once (not on the first date!) and he was very surprised that I scored higher than him. That didn’t mean much to me, as I know for a fact he is much more intelligent than I can ever be, but I was tickled by it. Then again, this was the same boyfriend that pulled a parking meter out of the ground while drunk in NYC when he was 18, and got arrested. I’d never be that dumb, ooops, I mean unintelligent. ; ) Somehow, I always knew when the pigs were coming; I could smell them. Anyway, that incident haunted him when he had to get a lawyer, and pay a lot of legal fees to clear his name when he was trying to get licensed to practice in California many years later.

IQ tests don’t mean much to me right now. Interesting posts in this forum though.

G

Tony Bubb wrote: I guess I could have said "unintelligent." So, now I am curious... ... I can tell you what I know ... it has always been presumed ... higher IQ's are having fewer children than those at the lower end of the scale. It seems that it is being bred out. Personally, I also suspect ...

Well.... If you can tell me what "intelligent" means then I'll give you a gold star. You're using a term that NOBODY can define. If you can tell me what IQ has to do with "intelligent" I'll give you two. If you can show that people with higher IQ's are having fewer children than people with lower ones I'll give you three. I won't take points off your current reply for your "I also suspect...".

Hint: "intelligent" doesn't mean "I understand correlation and can do statistics". Apart from trying to impress with "what I know...", your reply sounds like you'd support a good eugenics program.

Punctuated equilibrium notwithstanding, I don't believe you're going to change the "intelligence" trait in a couple of decades.

rmsusa wrote: Well.... If you can tell me what "intelligent" means then I'll give you a gold star. You're using a term that NOBODY can define. If you can tell me what IQ has to do with "intelligent" I'll give you two. If you can show that people with higher IQ's are having fewer children than people with lower ones I'll give you three. I won't take points off your current reply for your "I also suspect...". Hint: "intelligent" doesn't mean "I understand correlation and can do statistics". Apart from trying to impress with "what I know...", your reply sounds like you'd support a good eugenics program. Punctuated equilibrium notwithstanding, I don't believe you're going to change the "intelligence" trait in a couple of decades.

What does IQ have to do with intelligent and what is the definition?
Intelligence in any species can be roughly measured by the number of times it repeats a mistake before it learns a lesson. In humans, who have cognitive power, there are other vectors, like reason, novel problem solving, and language. Presently, in the scientific world, this is best measured by a little test we call an IQ test (Intelligence Quotient).
While it is not perfect by any means, it is the best and most widely accepted measure there is. And that is what IQ has to do with intelligence.
A more ingenious person migh have asked why the raw Binet test scores incresed over time in adults. That is a question I can not answer.

However, it has long been a well known and well studied fact that lower IQ people are more likely to have large families. I liked the way it was put in a 1997 article in the London Times, regarding a large study which included only sibling pairs:

"Demographers will find it gloomily interesting that the average age at which women had their first birth was almost four years younger for the dull siblings than for the bright ones, while the number of children born to dull women averaged 1.9, half a child more than for either the normal or the bright."

Eugenics? No, I wouldn't support it. But I don't bury my head in idealistic sand either.

You have google- go look it up. I would like my 3 gold stars delivered in person, please.

I think one day, me & my partner will take some bashies up a wall for an anchor, hang a ledge, have either me or him lead up & pop off, fire the one finger salute at everyone on our way down, and make this entire argument even more pointless than it already is.

Mark Nelson wrote:I think one day, me & my partner will take some bashies up a wall for an anchor, hang a ledge, have either me or him lead up & pop off, fire the one finger salute at everyone on our way down, and make this entire argument even more pointless than it already is.

>Head hung in shame< I don't know what I was thinking when I opened this thread. No more caffine after midnight for me.

Ken Cangi wrote: No more caffine after midnight for me.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that drinks caffeinated drinks after midnight.