Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

130 Excellent

About Encumbrance

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    A Silver Mt. Zion
  • Interests
    Being shy, totally shy, shyer than you, bitch

Recent Profile Visitors

676 profile views
  1. Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how far afield either the original question or I am being. His has no neat fits, that's for sure. It's rather broad and open-ended and plaintive in a way. It's silly. But I respectfully disagree with the characterization of my own as far afield. As soon as someone starts talking about "smarts," and "heritability," that's when I come in. The person I responded to had immediately stated that "smarts" were heritable. I wondered by how much, to what degree, and if heritable, could that be ascribed to demographic groups. As to your point, I try and stay away from the policy and procedural ramifications of this and just stick to the original question of IQ and heritably. I'll withdraw the question about ethic or demographic groups and simply limit the discussion to one demographic group if need be so, as wondering aloud about groups or demography makes the threat of abuse or racism that much close to the surface, something I am looking to avoid.
  2. Race and gender very much are germane to this topic of wealth and wealth accrual. You bet your ### they are.
  3. Race and gender are social constructs. Why can't IQ be one?
  4. Are race and gender social constructs then? I'm confused over what a trait is vs. characteristic. Perhaps a fundamental within the modern debate would help. What is the hierarchy of things acquired at birth, and what steps do they go in?
  5. Fair enough about points 1 and 2. I don't care enough about either, either. You actually brought him up. I said nothing about him. This is an area that interests me. I've read enough yet am a dilettante. What level would you put it at, or is further research necessary for you (which is fine and respect-worthy, I'm more curious if there's a number or a set of circumstances or what you base this off of)? And you never answered the first question, merely brushed it aside with a Charles Murray alias quip, which demonstrates your own intellectual pursuits and knowledge, but never gets to the nub or the rub. Which is also fine, as stating anything but one answer is political and social suicide. And likely not true, IMHO.
  6. I know of Charles Murray. What I just want to know is aside, aside from demography, are we going to believe that the statement that a degree of "IQ is heritable" is now not up for discussion, but a standard baseline and given. That's a pretty serious leap from the popular scourge that ravaged that book, no? And what degree and how do we determine that? I'm not castigating. I'm curious about your take.
  7. How much? Does this differentiate between races and groups, sexes and the like? eta* I made the leap from from colloquial "smarts" to "IQ." To the extent this is what he means is probably the extent of the debate, for sure. Just getting that out there for posterity.
  8. This sounds fun. Mind explaining? Is IQ really heritable?
  9. Considering my RB1 is Dalvin Cook and my RB2 is Duke Johnson, Darwin Thompson, James Conner (out), or Alexander Mattison, I'm going with Powell. I'm not entirely comfortable with he and Ty Montgomery's snap splits, but I have full confidence in Powell as a back and against the exact right opponent. Ring him up, put him in. I've always been a Powell fan, he's never gotten his true chance to be a lead back. That's not happening now at age 30, but for a game or two? YES.
  10. Fair enough. I'd imagine one country buying another country's constant deficit and debt has to play somewhere down the line geopolitically.
  11. Sounds suspiciously cribbed from a famous libertarian, who I think used the epigram for one of his books, but I'll give it to you. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all. Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." - Keats
  12. START WITH CONFIDENCE! 6/170/2! Oh, this isn't the Gordon thread and Soulfly3 has left? Fuller, our SP turns its lonely eyes to you. Whoo. whoo. whoo. whoo.
  13. Remember when they were talking about being a second world power in the '80s to the Japanese? I think misunderstanding and mischaracterization of Asian cultures hasn't left our journalism, and still won't despite how wrong it inherently seems to be. Admittedly, I'm a dilettante, but China has a command economy and authoritarian control of the populace, some of whom may not be so compliant in the future. I see huge economic and social potential for China, just not potential for the ruling party. Perhaps that is just democratic prejudice, but the past 300 years have given us democratic wins in all major wars; all major conflicts. I don't see it ending. Oh, and a preemptive and off the cuff remark: Please don't quote Friedman from the NYT. He's a sinophile that's been banging this drum through and through.
  14. "Better off financially" sometimes comes with a gauche way of delivering, of representing one's self, and of general behavior that may be just too darn unfit to sit with.