Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If your daughter did not begin life with a high IQ she would not respond as well to the environment you have created for her as she has.My daughter now is 7 and her "intelligence" and especially her "character", became clearly obvious at around age 2. My wife and me are not poor and quite knowledgeable - therefore she was raised differently then some poor families kid. She got to travel at age 2 and see things (poor kids don't) - she is "pushed" at times by my wife and me, to learn as such, and to learn about things that poor people wouldn't even know off - so as to teach their own kid.
Whilst other Chinese parents kept their kids (2 years old) at a safe distance in the Zoo (poor people in China can't afford to go to a Zoo) - I took her on my arms to feed e.g. Lamas, Roe deer and Camels right into their mouth.
I took her for swimming without any swimming aids, she constantly was carried by me on my shoulders (age 1+) when going for a walk or hiking, and not in some low horizon buggy - where kids don't get to see much. And poor parents also do not have a kiddo carry backpack.
Since age 3 she goes (has to) for Tae kwon do, together with me, and she practices ballet (without me). We paint together and play Lego together, (poor kids don't even have Lego, or watercolors) last year I taught her to play poker - and she bluffs like hell. Because I am financially well off - I can spend a lot of time with my daughter. Poor people don't spend any or much time at all with their kids. She speaks fluent Chinese and Shanghainese (my wife) and she speaks very good English and German (me). Poor kids only speak their local lingo and already got problems with Mandarin at school - not even to mention English. She is very well aware of the differences in her lifestyle compared to those of Chinese kids, - since she logically observes and compares. If I get tough on her she will say: I want a Chinese Papa.
She is well mannered and observant - due to her well off parents demanding manners and concentration - poor people usually do not possess e.g. table manners - and don't care much about manners, therefore she can use both chopstick and fork and knife - poor people don't have fork and knifes to eat with. A Chinese 7 year old kid - especially a poor one, doesn't know how to make a sandwich, chocolate drink or a marmalade bread for breakfast. Due to this she also got taught by me how to sharpen a kitchen knife. Poor kids do not have a smart phone - hell she knows more about the menu functions then me. I taught her how to operate my laptop - and therefore she makes use of Microsoft paint program, and I taught her to play chess on it (she is reasonably good at it) - poor kids don't have a laptop.
When I take my car out or into the driveway - I let her at times handle the steering wheel and signals - even on the main-road; short off to our driveway (with flabbergasted Chinese looking on). Poor kids parents don't have a car.
Due to all the above mentioned and much more, our daughter is "very confident" - and confidence is what provides for her own "eagerness" to learn and get herself into new issues, thus acquiring further knowledge, and therefore she is far more knowledgeable then some poor Chinese kid. And that "knowledge" she has acquired in total, provides the essence for her achieving a good or high IQ score. Poor kids aren't confident towards rich kids at all - unless they get themselves into a brawl, being or thus getting aware of a probable physical advantage.
So Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein obviously don't know what they talk about and propagate.
Total Bullshit - our daughters future wealth will depend to a large part on her $ inheritance, (see the thread - why are Whites wealthier the Blacks). Her sound overall knowledge she has acquired due to having well off parents, the "connections" that her well off mother and father have towards "influential decision makers" (in Chinese called Guanxi) Poor people don't have Guanxi, and foremost onto her acquired "confidence" and "eagerness" to succeed in live, matters that are of interest to her, and being knowledgeable, aware about significant issues that impact her future self-made wealth.
And that IQ score derives and depends onto the upbringing, via an e.g. rich or a poor family.
Now she is in the 2nd grade and amongst the top 10 of her class (28kids). Once we push her (Papa getting serious with her) or e.g. extra tutoring classes, she immediately moves into the top 5 in the following exams. (poor people can't afford tutoring classes).
As such it is undeniable that a kid with well off and knowledgeable parents - possesses a far higher degree of acquired knowledge - then some poor kid, or even a rich kid, but unfortunately blessed with parents that aren't very knowledgeable.
So much for your "genetically" inherited IQ conviction, aka fantasy, that you draw solely from "White Supremacist inspired scientist theories".
Totally irrelevant and plain stupid - since there is absolutely no way to measure the intelligence of a new-born. And you got absolutely no proof that would or could support/verify your unsubstantiated statement.If your daughter did not begin life with a high IQ she would not respond as well to the environment you have created for her as she has.
I do not advise you to adopt the illegitimate child of an unmarried welfare mother and a violent street criminal. If you did I am virtually certain that the child would not respond well to what you are doing for your biological daughter.
The three fifths compromise was progress. Before it, slaves didn’t count. The compromise was to recognizes them, even as just a percentage. It was as a stepping stone to equality.
It's amazing what some people will come up with to justify wrrong.It was nothing of the kind. The white residents of the South wanted the slaves counted so they could increase their representation in the House of Representatives.
The effect wealth has on IQ is less than the effect IQ has on wealth. In The Bell Curve Charles Murray and Professor Richard Hernstein demonstrate that the best predictor of adult earning is not a child's family income when the child is seven, but the child's IQ score at that age. .
Without the compromise, the law of unintended consequences would have given the southern states increased representation and power in Washington. Given that they had just lost a brutal war, would that have had a positive impact on the country, or was it better to dilute their power?It's amazing what some people will come up with to justify wrrong.
If your daughter did not begin life with a high IQ she would not respond as well to the environment you have created for her as she has.
I do not advise you to adopt the illegitimate child of an unmarried welfare mother and a violent street criminal. If you did I am virtually certain that the child would not respond well to what you are doing for your biological daughter.
Without the compromise, the law of unintended consequences would have given the southern states increased representation and power in Washington. Given that they had just lost a brutal war, would that have had a positive impact on the country, or was it better to dilute their power?
You either do not understand, or you do not want to understand, that there is a difference between being denounced and being disproved. As more is learned about human genetics, and as no method has been discovered to significantly and permanently raise the IQ of a child who tests poorly it is becoming increasingly obvious that assertions made in The Bell Curve are true.The Bell Curve has been debunked as bad science years ago.
IQ testing of children is questionable, at best. (For the record, when I was IQ tested as a child, I rated at 148. I honestly don't think that was accurate, but I've never tested myself since and kind of don't care.)
Clearly, a Tiger Mom who is going to force her kid to study every night and won't let him have dinner if he brings home a B is going to score higher than a poor black kid whose mother is working two minimum wage jobs to keep a roof over their heads. Combine that with an underfunded school with outdated textbooks and windows patched with cardboard in the winter, and you simply aren't going to get the same result.
But you are okay with al of that, because Jamal stuffed you into a locker once before he got the girl you were creeping on.
The only reason delusions like yours are widespread is that the discussion of IQ has been coerced. Winning the genetic IQ lottery at conception is more important than anything that happens later.I'm virtually certain that if the child left the hospital with her new family instead of going home with her biological family, there would be little to no difference between these children except in terms of natural skills or interests.
IQ is not something you're born with. It is developed with good nutrition, and an intellectually stimulating environment. The care and attention an infant receives develops language, focus, physical cooordination and dexterity. One of the reasons school breakfast programs were developed was that children who had a nourishing breakfast, have a higher IQ than children who don't. Children who are played with, encouraged and cared for develop higher IQ's than children who are left in playpens all day in a dirty diaper.
Yeah, I went back and realized I read the date wrong. Oh, well. And I was taught a long time ago, not today. If you really want every voter in America to know history, there are a lot of things the democrats will have to explain away, such as revering a KKK grand wizard in their midst.I'm virtually certain that if the child left the hospital with her new family instead of going home with her biological family, there would be little to no difference between these children except in terms of natural skills or interests.
IQ is not something you're born with. It is developed with good nutrition, and an intellectually stimulating environment. The care and attention an infant receives develops language, focus, physical cooordination and dexterity. One of the reasons school breakfast programs were developed was that children who had a nourishing breakfast, have a higher IQ than children who don't. Children who are played with, encouraged and cared for develop higher IQ's than children who are left in playpens all day in a dirty diaper.
I think maybe you should go and look at the history books before you bury yourself further. The compromise was counting slaves as 3/5 of a person or not at all.
And this happened after the War of Independence which they won, not after the “brutal, Civil War.
And you wonder why Republicans aren’t teaching children the true history of the nation. Everyone voter America should KNOW this stuff.
That's the simple truth. The slave owners considered people like you animals in every way but they wanted their animals counted for the census. Like it or not, agree with them or not, that was the truth at the time.It's amazing what some people will come up with to justify wrrong.
The effect wealth has on IQ is less than the effect IQ has on wealth. In The Bell Curve Charles Murray and Professor Richard Hernstein demonstrate that the best predictor of adult earning is not a child's family income when the child is seven, but the child's IQ score at that age. .
You either do not understand, or you do not want to understand, that there is a difference between being denounced and being disproved. As more is learned about human genetics, and as no method has been discovered to significantly and permanently raise the IQ of a child who tests poorly it is becoming increasingly obvious that assertions made in The Bell Curve are true.
The only reason delusions like yours are widespread is that the discussion of IQ has been coerced. Winning the genetic IQ lottery at conception is more important than anything that happens later.
You don't get it. There never should have been a compromise. Trying to rationalize this is like a German trying to justify the Holocaust to a Jew.Without the compromise, the law of unintended consequences would have given the southern states increased representation and power in Washington. Given that they had just lost a brutal war, would that have had a positive impact on the country, or was it better to dilute their power?
You don't get it. There never should have been a compromise. Trying to rationalize this is like a German trying to justify the Holocaust to a Jew.
Stories tell us how the so-called founders struggled for several years to figure out how much of a person blacks would count as a human.
It's funny how oblivious so many people are. There is a card in America that is more valuable than the Visa Platinum card. It's the white card and the white card was officially created in America as a nation starting with this:
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of this land.Included in the constitution is the three-fifths compromise. The Three- Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It says: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.”
3/5 Compromise: The Definition Clause that Shaped Political Representation
The blazing South Carolinian sun beats down on your lash-scarred back. It's noon, and the promise of shade and rest is hours away. You have little idea what day it is. Nor does it matter. It's hot. It was hot yesterday. It will be hot tomorrow. There is less cotton clinging to the sharp plantshistorycooperative.org
Stories tell us how the so-called founders struggled for several years to figure out how much of a person blacks would count as a human. Starting in 1783, our wise and omniscient founders began to try figuring out how to count enslaved people as a population for representation. By1787, they figured it out. This ridiculous “conclusion” allowed humans to count as three-fifths of a person because they were slaves. Whites still counted as whole people.
So in 1787 the white card was created and it is now 236 years old..
It’s all Marxism intended to pit us against each other. It’s divide and conquer. Keep us fighting with each other so we don’t notice our shared home is burning down. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of people who’s only sense of self worth comes from their identity as a victim.
Anyone can find something on the internet they like. If you understand those two articles you link to, explain their arguments in your own words. If you can't do that you do not understand them.So where is the peer-reviewed study validating their work?
Oh, that's right THERE ISN'T ONE.
The Real Problem with Charles Murray and "The Bell Curve"
The 1994 book, now seeing an unfortunate resurgence, investigates racial differences in IQ—without being honest about the authors' motivesblogs.scientificamerican.com
Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth | UC Berkeley Sociology Department
sociology.berkeley.edu
