USA v Canada (Split from "Don't Hate Betting Systems")
Quote: MidwestAPCanada, got to admit your hockey team is better, completely outplayed the Americans today. You also have great skiing, fantastic fishing, beautiful forests and mountains, and you did produce Pamela Anderson. But, you got to own Bieber! Somehow that musical terrorist snuck into our country and you can have him back.
It was a "loser keeps Bieber" match. Sorry that you had to play for such high stakes.
Local boy got the only goal of the game, so they'll be happy around these parts.
Pamela comes from up the road. In the aptly named 'Ladysmith'. It's about all that I can think of that's worth mentioning about Ladysmith.
Quote: paisielloNah, it's OK, you can keep Bieber.
No, no, you keep him. He's a very naughty boy. DUI is very serious. Yours.
http://www.bustedtees.com/canadaamericashat
http://www.bustedtees.com/fodcanada
+1Quote: gpac1377I'm not entirely disputing your contention, I just think it's overstated. I view human progress as cyclical with a slight, almost imperceptible upslope.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm saying that if you took the average 13 year old kid form the 1940's and put him VS a 13 year old kid from 2014. the kid from 2014 would run circles around the kid from 1940 and have him pissing in his pants in every aspect.
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/17133-iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations-split-from-craps-betting-to-impress-stupid-women/2/#post330658
Quote: endermikeThis test is made artificially difficult because it is about a century old. What is important today will, for the most part, be unimportant 100 years from now. This test is focusing on memorized facts and lacks any critical thinking. In the current world there is much less value in memorization than knowing how to find the facts and combine them in critical thinking. That is why your comparison is invalid. We don't teach children how to use whale blubber for oil anymore because the skill is obsolete. It is nonsensical to say that folks who know how to do antiquated skills are "smarter" because they have those skills. Similarly, virtually no one who took that test in 1912 ever knew how to use a smart phone, but that does not inherently make them less smart.
I would guess that in raw intelligence kids today are smarter because there have been advances in prenatal and postnatal care. Historically, large numbers of pregnant women behaved in ways we now know reduce intelligence in kids (smoking, drinking, and lack of vitamins). There are far fewer kids who don't go to school today as compared to the past. These are incontrovertible facts. While we don't have a controlled study, I would wager for the reasons I stated, on average children born since 1990 are in fact smarter than those born before 1950.
Demographics burn
Answered here: http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/17133-iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations-split-from-craps-betting-to-impress-stupid-women/2/#post330661
