'israeliteknight' posted Jul 24, 2014 4:54 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9526729): - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > ('israeliteknight', quoting GSC): "[Readers should be > aware that 'israeliteknight' has > most graciously awarded Mr Obama an 'IQ' of 72 (or > thereabouts) at his fabulous website "THE CHRISTIAN > PARTY: Father's Manifesto" > > ('israeliteknight'): >To set the record straight, I said > no such thing. > > Just because someone on this forum quotes Professor > Lynn's study which puts the average IQ of Kenya at 72 > doesn't mean they agree with it. And in fact PISA > suggests that this is an optimistic estimate and that > their real average IQ is in the range of 65. > > It's YOU, Chandy, who claims to have a high IQ, who > trusts IQ, who's obsessed with discussing IQ. > THREE claims have been made in the above sentence.
All three claims can easily be demonstrated to be false.
This is, more or less, par for the course in all the works of 'israeliteknight' at his posts here at Math-teach as well as at his laughable website "THE CHRISTIAN PARTY: Father's Manifesto" (http://fathersmanifesto.net/). > > Are you just lying, or too illiterate to grasp that > simple point. > See above. > > In either event, please stop repeating these lies. > For your information, 'israeliteknight':
1. You are the only person here who has been quoting Professor Richard Lynn's phony 'IQ' studies with breathless approval. The only thing I've ever written about 'IQ' and the like is to refute the nonsense you've been writing about it.
(I believe that I did on one occasion mention that, on various IQ tests I've taken scored between 125 and 173. The deviation in these scores should be enough to indicate that there is something grievously wrong with the whole concept of 'IQ'. But 'israeliteknight' did not have the awareness to catch this serious flaw in the 'IQ' concept! Instead, he latched on the the 'IQ' score of 173 to suggest that I was claiming an 'intelligence quotient' of 173 or something of that sort. It is evident that 'israeliteknight' is somewhat ignorant about the whole concept of 'IQ' - as he is ignorant about 'standard deviations', 'Navigation', "CALCULUS" and other matters on which he has sought to claim or show great 'expertise').
2. ALL studies thus far conducted seeking to correlate human intelligence with 'IQ' are just so much hokum and non-science - it's utter nonsense. That's in my opinion. There is much evidence to support my opinion. We humans (including our very best science) have not yet come even close to understanding 'human intelligence'.
We do know that the 'IQ number' does indeed have some vague and very dicey connection to intelligence - but the entire concept of 'IQ' is just too shallow and superficial to provide any scientific measure of any aspect of human intelligence - including those limited areas that it does purport to measure. This is easily demonstrated.
3. In my opinion, practically ALL of your revered guru Richard Lynn's work on "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" (Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen) is just so much hokum, non-science and, ultimately, it's just plain and simple nonsense.
4. In my opinion, ALL of your posts here at Math-teach seeking to connect race, 'IQ', intelligence, and the like - they'reall just so much hokum, non-science, ultimately it's all just the most utter nonsense.
5. Your website "THE CHRISTIAN PARTY: Father's Manifesto" (http://fathersmanifesto.net/) is just the same pitiful rubbish as are all your posts here.
6. Your understanding of math is just laughable.
7. Your knowledge of 'standard deviations' and statistics is just so much rubbish. You demonstrate this at almost every post of yours.
8. Your knowledge of calculus is negligible. Practically everyone here at Math-teach realised this when you consistently termed it as "CALCULUS" [presumably in order to induce some 'shock and awe' in your readers], and also when you suggested that 'Navigation' developed out of "CALCULUS" (or was that vice-versa?) This ploy of yours induced only laughter, I'm afraid. I believe Professor Lou Talman pointed out this particular error of yours. I'm not suggesting that we should laugh at the genuine erros that people might make - but anyone who assumes the cloak of vast 'expertise' on any matter (as you have) should be prepared to called to account on that matter.
9. The assertions at Nos. 1 to 8 can be demonstrated to be scientifically valid.
10. If you ever post something - ANYTHING - that is scientifically or mathematically valid (or that it useful as civic science and/or civic sense), I shall be most surprised. However I shalll as soon as I read it definitely acknowledge that you've done something truly worthwhile, and I shall also strongly recommend that everyone should read and acknowledge its value.
11. I do assure you that I shall always seek to tell the truth about your posts and your website at every opportunity that I get (of course, within the bounds of the rules for discourse set by our esteemed Moderators). If someone shows me that I've said something unjustified about you, your philosophy, your science, your math - I shall immediately render you my heartfelt and most sincere apologies - if you will tender me your equally heartfelt and sincere apologies for all the rubbish you have posted.