Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Kazakhstan people are smarter than Irish people.

13»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Its about right, God love us, but we really are among the dumbest people in the world,

    When we vote Fiana Fail back into power they will sort it out after they give more squillions to the banks and property developers. Then us people will just give them that ould Irish I've had a stroke look.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    A little background here, the "professor" in this case is from Ulster University, a fine institution last seen sending out detailed studies on why women are naturally worse than men in mathematics and should just shtai in the kitchen thar hai. I think it might have been the same professor actually. Did he also pinch off that study about how Africans naturally have lower intelligence than caucasians as well?

    It's a nonsensical scientifically risible excuse for loyalist/whatever the hell they are standing for these days propaganda, of course. You can't take IQ tests across a wide geographical area and just sum them up, IQ tests have to be normalised per population, among many other things.

    It's a classic example of 19th century scientific racism, which is about the level I'd expect from UU to behonest.
    Has anyone else noticed how many more people from the North are interested in the genetics of race? The amount of times I've come across references to racial genetics on boards and elsewhere in a Northern Irish context is a little disturbing tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    The data Lynn used to get a score of 93 for the irish is old and not valid
    he just average two old tests

    This is how Lynn got the score of 93

    p209 of his book

    Ireland
    From
    A test on Irish school children gave a score of 87 (raven 1981)
    A test of 75 adults , score of 98 (buj 1981)

    (98 + 87 / 2) = 93

    The premise of this thread is not valid
    i.e. Lynn score of 93 for Irish IQ is not valid

    Link to his book see p209
    http://books.google.com/books?id=KQ4rLiAbHQQC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=richard+lynn+irish+IQ&source=bl&ots=IrwSvz1-lR&sig=1w9hdHKi-_vDPkhl_-Zl1KHGYuw&hl=en&ei=ThxxTOr1JcP58AaKy_jqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭Daniel S


    mossyc123 wrote: »
    I'd only vaguely heard of Boyle and Beafort.

    I suppose we put a lot more stock on our literary heritage then our scientific heritage.
    I think that's exactly our problem. :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    We actually have a Nobel prize for physics Ernest Walton won it in 1951 for his work on splitting the Atom.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,383 ✭✭✭emeraldstar


    realies wrote: »
    :) My family & i are not stupid so it must be my neighbours your talking about :)

    Oh yeah?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,047 ✭✭✭Da Shins Kelly


    IQ tests are bullsh*t, in fairness.

    I wouldn't consider Irish people particularly stupid. We've had our fair share of Nobel Prize winners in different disciplines - a wealth of great writers and significant scientists - not to mention, great political leaders of the past. For a small country, we've produced our fair share of what people might consider 'geniuses'. Let's keep in mind too, Ireland is a very small country in comparison to most on that list. The odds are kinda stacked against us if we're gonna compare ourselves to somewhere like the US that had millions and millions of citizens, and therefore is far more likely to produce more above average intelligent people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭Daniel S


    4leto wrote: »
    We actually have a Nobel prize for physics Ernest Walton won it in 1951 for his work on splitting the Atom.
    *cough* mentioned that already ;) */cough*


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    This has only the most tenuous of links with the thread but here's an interview with a famous Kazakhstani

    http://movies.about.com/od/borat/a/borat103006.htm

    (much, much funnier than the movie)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭red menace


    mtb_kng wrote: »
    We've had a huge impact on science!!! We're just rubbish at supporting/promoting it.

    John Philip Holland launched the submarine just a few miles away from me :)

    There's loads! Ernest Walton, Robert Boyle, George Boole and Francis Beaufort is a start.

    John Tyndall from Carlow
    • Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the capacities of the various gases in the air to absorb radiant heat, a.k.a. infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology, is an early landmark in the history of absorption spectroscopy of gases.[8] He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.[9]
    • He devised demonstrations that advanced the question of how radiant heat is absorbed and emitted at the molecular level. He appears to be the first person to have demonstrated experimentally that emission of heat in chemical reactions has its physical origination within the newly created molecules (1864).[10] He produced instructive demonstrations involving what he called calorescence, which is the conversion of infrared into visible light at the molecular level.[11] Among his key laboratory tools were substances that are transparent to infrared and opaque to visible light; or vice versa. He usually referred to infrared as "radiant heat", and sometimes as "ultra-red undulations", as the word "infrared" did not start coming into use until the 1880s. His main published reports of the 1860s were republished as a 450-page collection in 1872 under the title Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat.
    • In the investigations on radiant heat in air it had been necessary to use air from which all traces of floating dust and other particulates had been removed.[12] A very sensitive way to detect particulates is to bathe the air with intense light. The scattering of light by particulate impurities in air and other gases, and in liquids, is known today as the Tyndall Effect or Tyndall Scattering.[13] In studying this scattering during the late 1860s Tyndall was a beneficiary of recent improvements in electric-powered lights. He also had the use of good light concentrators. He developed the nephelometer and turbidimeter and similar instruments that show properties of aerosols and colloids through concentrated light beams. Particulates suspended in air are visible to the naked eye in a darkened room with sunlight coming through a crack in the curtains. Mostly visibly that's light reflecting off large particulates which is not the same as light scattering off small particulates. But with dark background illumination and customized light beams, and without microscopes, very low concentrations of particulates very far below the threshold of visibility become visible and quantifiable because of light scattering. When combined with microscopes, the result is the ultramicroscope, which was developed later by others. Tyndall is the founder of this line of instruments, which are based on exploiting the Tyndall effect.
    • In the lab he came up with a simple way to obtain "optically pure" air. He coated the inside walls of a box with glycerin, which is a sticky syrup. He discovered that after a few days' wait, the air inside the sealed box was entirely particulate-free under examination with light beams (the box had glass windows for the purpose). The various floating-matter particulates had all ended up getting stuck to the walls or settling on the sticky floor.[14] There were no signs of floating micro-organisms ("germs") in the optically pure air. He compared what happened when he let sterilized meat-broths sit in such pure air, and in ordinary air. The broths were sterilized beforehand by boiling. The broths sitting in the optically pure air remained "sweet" (as he said) to smell and taste after many months of sitting, while the ones in ordinary air started to become putrid after a few days. This demonstration extended Louis Pasteur's earlier demonstrations that the presence of micro-organisms is a precondition for biomass decomposition. However, the next year (1876) some repeats of the exercise resulted in a surprising failure to reproduce it. From this he was led to find viable bacterial spores in supposedly heat-sterilized foods. The foods had been contaminated with dry bacterial spores from hay in the lab, he found out. All bacteria are killed by boiling but they have a spore form that can survive boiling, he correctly contended, citing research by Ferdinand Cohn. Tyndall found a way to eradicate the bacterial spores that came to be known as "Tyndallization". At the time, it affirmed the "germ theory" against a number of critics whose experimental results had been defective from the same cause. During the mid-1870s Pasteur and Tyndall were in frequent communication.[15][16]
    • He was the first to observe and report the phenomenon of thermophoresis in aerosols. He spotted it surrounding hot objects while investigating the Tyndall Effect with focused lightbeams in a dark room. He devised a better way to demonstrate it, and then simply reported it (1870), without investigating the physics of it in depth.[17]
    220px-TyndallsSetupForDemonstratingReflectionOfSoundInAir.jpg magnify-clip.png
    One of Tyndall's experimental apparatuses for showing that sound is reflected in air at the interface between air bodies of different densities.


    • In radiant-heat experiments that called for much laboratory expertise in the early 1860s, he showed for a variety of readily vaporizable liquids that, molecule for molecule, the vapor form and the liquid form have essentially the same power to absorb radiant heat.[18] (In modern experiments using narrow-band spectra, some relatively small differences are found that Tyndall's equipment was unable to get at; see e.g. absorption spectrum of H2O).
    • He consolidated and enhanced the work of Desains, Forbes, Knoblauch and others demonstrating that the principal properties of visible light can be reproduced for radiant heat, namely reflection, refraction, diffraction, polarization, depolarization, double refraction, and rotation in a magnetic field (Faraday effect).[19]
    • When studying the absorption of radiant heat by ozone, he came up with a demonstration that helped confirm that ozone is an oxygen cluster.[20]
    • Using his expertise about radiant heat absorption by gases, he invented a system for measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in a sample of exhaled human breath (1862, 1864). The basics of Tyndall's system is in daily use in hospitals today for monitoring patients under anesthesia.[21] (See capnometry.)
    • Invented a better fireman's respirator, a hood that filtered smoke and noxious gas from air (1871, 1874).[22]
    Lots m ore to choose from too
    Plus many literary heavyweights Behan, Heaney, Swift, Wilde Beckett


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Solair


    His sources of data are highly questionable.

    It looks like the Irish data is from circa 1971 and I'm not sure how representative the sample was.

    There is actually relatively little research data for many smaller countries on which he could even base something like this.

    Also the IQ scores he has given for some African countries would imply that they are actually mentally retarded to the point they'd have difficulty tying their shoelaces. That is simply NOT the case. So, I would speculate that this research is deeply flawed.

    He also has higher IQ scores for Northern Italy vs Southern Italy and used that to explain their difference in economic success. He ignored the fact that southern Italy has no natural industrially useful resources, is highly mountainous and difficult to farm, suffers from regular droughts and devastating volcanoes...

    You could sail aircraft carriers through the gaps in his arguments!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭IrishEyes19


    No disrespect or anything, but Wikipedia???

    That's written by just anyone. You only have to skim through various ones to point out the misspellings and mistakes in details. I wouldn't rely on that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    Hmm, it seems that the most intelligent people in the world have come out of Hong Kong and Singapore and is not coincidence I suspect that both these countries are the top two in the world for economic freedom. Perhaps Ireland should try it if we ever have the balls to leave Europe.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Solair wrote: »
    Also the IQ scores he has given for some African countries would imply that they are actually mentally retarded to the point they'd have difficulty tying their shoelaces. That is simply NOT the case. So, I would speculate that this research is deeply flawed.
    Plus 1000. So Africans = equal low IQ. OK which "Africans"?. Southern Bantu folks? Pygmies? North east Africans? Kenyans? San Bushmen? All Africans but each as different to each other as I as an Irishman are to each example above. Personally I have no great objection to the theory that different populations(not "races") may have local adaptations to higher IQ and others to lower IQ. It's possible. Different populations do show some local adaptations in other areas more than other populations, so brainpower of the sort that IQ measures could vary depending on environment. If and it's a big if the data supports it. Some data shows Native Australians have a far better visual memory than other populations, so it's possible. Otherwise it's frankly bollocks.

    Even if this was shown to be true culture and environment have a huge affect. Look at the world today. Take say the middle east. Europe would produce more doctorates and high end research than the middle east as an area. Big deal. 5000 years ago they were building ziggurats into the sky and writing about it when Germans say were huddled in mud huts. It doesn't mean Arab folks or German folks are either geniuses or dribblers. For a long time British researchers on dodgy studies were claiming the rural Irish were dribblers, yet the same stock was building stuff like Newgrange a thousand years before Stonehenge was thought up.

    When you read stuff like this it's always a good plan to see the cultural background of the one making the claims. That's usually a very good indicator of whether to believe it or not.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    super-rush wrote: »
    You do realise that table is 6 years old or are you trying to be funny?

    Im sure loads of countries overtook us in that time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Solair


    I'd suggest that you read up on 'the Pioneer Fund' which seem to be sponsors of this kind of research.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund


Advertisement
Advertisement