0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This transorbital lobotomy method did not require a neurosurgeon and could be performed outside of an operating room without the use of anesthesia by using electroconvulsive therapy to induce seizure. The modifications to his lobotomy allowed Freeman to broaden the use of the surgery, which could be performed in psychiatric hospitals throughout the United States that were overpopulated and understaffed. In 1950 Walter Freeman's longtime partner James Watts left their practice and split from Freeman due to his opposition to the cruelty and overuse of the transorbital lobotomy.
Walter J. Freeman was born on November 14, 1895 to a privileged family. He was raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by his parents. Freeman was also known for being a bit of an oddball and he complemented his theatrical approach to demonstrating surgery by sporting a cane, goatee, and a wide-brimmed hat.
... If this were true we would still live in caves ...
But tbh the whole argument is pointless since your GCSE grades mean absolutely nothing to your intelligence or capability
since they have constantly catered for the lowest denominator and are racing to the bottom with the rest of the world competing for headlines.
Quote from: ProjectSailor on 14/09/2015 14:30:09... If this were true we would still live in caves ...Why?
If intelligence was genetically linked then there would be no net gain of intelligence over time
The concept of regression comes from genetics and was popularized by Sir Francis Galton during the late 19th century with the publication of Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. [1.]
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/09/2015 19:57:32Quote from: ProjectSailor on 14/09/2015 14:30:09... If this were true we would still live in caves ...Why?If intelligence was genetically linked then there would be no net gain of intelligence over time and without better 'intelligence genes' all generations would eventually be hardwired to the same level of intelligence.. hence no one would think 'hey why don't we build our own caves and figure out a way to do it'.
If intelligence had a preponderant dependence on inheritance then...
If intelligence had a preponderant dependence on inheritance then Regression to mediocrity would dictate that intelligence would decrease
Could it possibly be that they live in the same house, eat the same food, are taken to the same museums, and etc. etc. etc. ?
If intelligence was genetically linked then there would be no net gain of intelligence over time and without better 'intelligence genes' all generations would eventually be hardwired to the same level of intelligence.. hence no one would think 'hey why don't we build our own caves and figure out a way to do it'.
Therefore, this research has no practical application to predicting GCSE scores due to inheritance. It has been rather useful in making the Daily Mail to claim that predictive power , hasn't it?
Therefore, to return to my original question, why are you and the rest of the naked scientists here beavering away to present it twice - (2 years old research as it ever was) as the hot news of the day?
4 Apr 2013 - California Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Democrat, wants to federalize a state law that protects pedophiles.
In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.
Do you assert therefore that these twins GCSE scores are not necessarily the result of their inherited intelligence? Could it possibly be that they live in the same house, eat the same food, are taken to the same museums, and etc. etc. etc. ?
I have understood this research from its initial presentation here -- including its assumption that women's different GCSE scores are caused by their genetic makeup.
I also said that the sexist discrimination was apparent to anyone who is not a testosterone-ridden throwback. Is that not so, Mister?
why are you and the rest of the naked scientists here beavering away to present it twice - (2 years old research as it ever was) as the hot news of the day?
Professor Robert Plomin from Kings College London explains why twins areso interesting to geneticists, and what they can tell us.
This is a family forum - as the rules attest. Even though you are one of the moderator's little pals, kindly avoid using your garbage mouth like that again, Mister. You may have noticed that I am able to use quite colorful - but clean -- imagery without your gutter vocabulary. So take a hint, Buster.Nevertheless, your bad manners have failed (again) to distract me from my point....This ... paper has produced no benefit to mankind except to sell newspapers of a dodgy type. Don't give me that tap dance about Binet. What is the use of this schlock to 21st century Britain -- or the world? Meanwhile. this dog has eaten up scarce medical research dollars and those valid areas of research that have a chance of benefiting people -- have (Wait for it!) ---gone wanting for funds.
I am reading, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.
So the real problem here is not the twin studies, but in mental attitude; viewing people with certain capabilities, or coming from certain national or ethnic origins with disdain. When polemic labels people like this, the perpetrators feel free to ignore any logic or humanity in what other parties say or do, and see no need to respond to it in a humane or logically sound way, based on objective evidence. I feel this is the fundamental error of the ad-hominem argument on a website.
And I am yet to hear how this mountain of genetic data will be kept out of secret government data bases in Britain or America.
In the case of medical sciences, the figures suggest more than 360 ethnic minority students were turned down for places that the Ucas forecast suggests they should have gained at leading Russell Group universities, over the five years of data.
Anything that is true can be explained in 5 sentences or so. Only deceptions need several paragraphs.
Mr. Moderator how is it a professional slur to point out your friend's personal interest in disparaging the sexist nature of Plomin's paper, Hmmm?