public sector pensions

14 Mar 2011

Applauds John....well done
Just one or two points.....an interesting observation of social mobility and career success...Probably made by one of those idiot sociologists...tells us that both taller and more attractive people are more likely to receive promotion and business success than others..*wonders idly how tall John is*
You do seem to insist on conflating I.Q. scores and intelligence...one merely indicates the possibility of the other...it does not prove it's prescence
You do indeed seem well read on the subject...or at least capable of using a search engine..you do also seem to be either unwilling or unable to apply any critical faculty to the information given...I don't imagine anyone is surprised by the disparity in I.Q. scores between the groups you name...I would hazard a guess that when your kids are starving or dying from malaria or aids (or your parents for that matter) Some twat with an I.Q. test ranks fairly low on your list of priorities...what do YOU think John??
I am most surprised by the fact that non of the links is to a site with the word aryan in the title
I am disappointed (but not surprised) that your arguments seem to depend on quotes or links to websites with little or no recourse to your own opinion or thought.I've met you John many many times I have never been impressed or intimidated by your other incarnations 'intellect' you haven't changed that

14 Mar 2011

Quote by john469
Does having a high IQ require that we have to be rude to others? :sad:
In my experience of life, I have found, that many people with high IQ's have very poor social skills and could not make a mess. IQ test,s may measure one form of intellect but only there academic capability's. In my view there are many other forms of intelligence.
This is very rare, but I mostly agree with Stag,s on this occasion
Of coarse this is only the view of a country ficco

Good for you, Blue.
However, others 'might' prefer to employ the odd bit of vituperative invective, rather than pissing around with passive aggressive tripe, of the sort that seems to turn some folks on these days.
Oh and, no, psychometric tests do not "just test academic capability's".
They can also be used to assess spatial skills, speed and efficiency etc.
Oh, good, i am probably a bloody genius after all :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

14 Mar 2011

And while I'm still here ....the Paris Hilton comment....Not I suspect the sharpest knife in the draw...fabulously wealthy....bugger me how did that happen surely only people with high I.Q.s are capable of accumulating wealth
Throw a stone into any gathering surrounded by paparazzi and I'd guess you'd have fairly high chance of hitting a fabulously wealthy idiot
You don't need to google John just use the evidence of your own senses....look at your experience not someone elses flow chart

14 Mar 2011

seems to me that john has won this on a 5th round knockout lol

i did think it was going to be a 30 second bowt but staggerslee kept his guard up well but he fell for the sucker upercut in the 5th and a doctor was called as it wqas such a clean punch.
the cleaners have a long night ahead cleening up all the blood on the canvas. i never knew this could be this much fun. duel

mrs star claps her hands in apreciation.

14 Mar 2011

Quote by john469
Applauds John....well done

Bollocks.

Just one or two points.....an interesting observation of social mobility and career success...Probably made by one of those idiot sociologists...tells us that both taller and more attractive people are more likely to receive promotion and business success than others..*wonders idly how tall John is*

I'm 6'2", self employed. Face like a meat pie though. Answers the joke not the point

You do seem to insist on conflating I.Q. scores and intelligence...one merely indicates the possibility of the other...it does not prove it's prescence

A good performance on an IQ test absolutely correlates with high intelligence.
That's the point, moran!oops!! lol

But to address your point:
So Lee, please point to the many brain surgeons, rocket scientists and mathematicians that have scored, in piss poor fashion, on an IQ test? LOL Missed the point
With that in mind, I direct you, again, to the quote from Pinker, and the de-facto policy position of the American Psychological Association.

the consensus view as embracing intelligence as a real and stable property; that IQ is a good measure of it; that it is a good predictor of success in life; and it is from 50 - 80% heritable.

NOT you'll note DEFINITIVE and only up to possibly 80% not quite the dead cert you seem to suggest then
However, feel free to show us the subject whom scores sub 70 on a IQ test, a subject whom also exhibits (according to you) the 'possibility' of possessing a vast intellect, despite performing piss poorly on the IQ test? I don't have to, I posit the possibility for your consideration much as your previously cited Darwin theorised about evolution...show me that I'm wrong, as the above quote says 50-80% ..surely the scientist knows that science needs to be questioned
Small clue, it doesn't and has never happened. It has not as yet been shown to occur would be the correct scientific response

You do indeed seem well read on the subject...or at least capable of using a search engine..you do also seem to be either unwilling or unable to apply any critical faculty to the information given...I don't imagine anyone is surprised by the disparity in I.Q. scores between the groups you name...I would hazard a guess that when your kids are starving or dying from malaria or aids (or your parents for that matter) Some twat with an I.Q. test ranks fairly low on your list of priorities...what do YOU think John??

Save your sordid invective, sonny Jim. My critical thinking and objective reasoning skills are fine. I think the phrase is quid pro quo you develop some manners and I'll do the same
Your crap strawman re: Africans perform poorly on IQ tests because they are 'starving' is just that, crap.
Blacks from all over Africa have been tested. From children, through to post graduates.
Go on Lee, have a guess what the data shows?
At this juncture, I should point out to you that starving, impoverished peoples from other areas of the globe have also been tested, again Lee, have a guess what the data shows, vis a vis, an impoverished Chinese vs an impoverished African?
I have already detailed the higher IQ exhibited by African Americans, as compared to Afircan's themselves, it's genetic. The same for upper caste Hindus, when compared to the lower untouchables.
Is curious about the demonstrable genetic differences between people of the same race...But you've explained that already they're part white...which leads to the aryan comment...John you read like a lunatic white supremacist if you're not you should perhaps be cautious as to how you word things
But yeah, well done on implying that all Africans are starving, potential Einsteins; that are oppressed by 'the man'. Africans of whom, would - without said impediment from the evil white man - no doubt be putting men on the moon and splitting atoms? I don't recall implying any such thing...the fact that you infer it is odd
As I said, save your self loathing rhetoric for someone else, maybe your next UAF function ;)
I am well read on a few select areas; however, I do not pretend to be an expert on everything... unlike you and your 'rent an opinion' ways. Why do you do that?
It is I believe the nature of the forum you are contributing to,to offer an opinion...I pretend no expertise, I know some things, I consider others and form an opinion,I had thought that was the point perhaps I should check with my dad to see if I've inherited my opinions..I doubt it though

I am most surprised by the fact that non of the links is to a site with the word aryan in the title

BOOM, Lee proving Goodwins Law... again!

read back in the forums I think I've done that link already
Yawn, for fucks sake Lee, get this into your stupid nut; Far East Asians have a higher average IQ that European Whites. Whites beat Far East Asians out 'overall' in terms of bell curve genius.
Jews destroy blacks on any IQ test, however no other race will ever, for example, produce a person capable of running as fast as the fastest black man.
I don't doubt it John I am curious as to why you think a small deviation in a meaningless statistic is sooooo important that you bring it up at every opportunity....what was it again ?? 6 points beteen white and asian subjects ??
Oh and Lee, you do know that this area has researchers from racial groups other than whites?
Indeed, the data I have thus far posted has been produced by Jews, Europeans and Asians.
Here, have one more, from Bruce Lahn, the Chinese - unfettered as they are by the forces that have subverted our halls of academia - LOVE this stuff:
Bruce Lahn: Strong evidence for Race related IQ gene discovered:

Oh and, another, Japanese this time, my golly:
Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ - An international perspective:

Chinas genetic engineers target IQ:

Those are the simple facts; race reality, not racist (by the way, "racism" is a crap concept invented by that wanker Trotsky, you know him, your pal, real name Lev Bronstein, the jewish scumbag that killed/tortured millions ofwhite christians, but lets gloss over that ;)
I know who Trotsky was I know the history of the Russian revolution.....I know that people would have been what I used instead of white christians....again you should choose your words John
Anyhoo, what have such realities got to do with "Aryan websites" whatever they are, care to share some with us?
As I'm sure you're aware John genetic supremacy is something of a cornerstone argument for your average white supremacist...do I care to share any ??not really my bag I'm more a porn and lolcats kind of guy...but if you really want to see some I'd suggest you google aryan nation
Lee, save your nonsense, it only renders you as imbecilic.

I am disappointed (but not surprised) that your arguments seem to depend on quotes or links to websites with little or no recourse to your own opinion or thought.I've met you John many many times I have never been impressed or intimidated by your other incarnations 'intellect' you haven't changed that

Firstly, LOL, fuck off, you are the FIRST to scream "give me a source".
Secondly, on a few points above, I gave you my own opinions WITHOUT citing a source. my bold
I knew, full well, that you would pull this card. You then did what? oh yeah, you asked for a source to prove my points LOL.
I'm pleased the irony wasn't lost on you John
You are all over the place, but thankyou for the vindication, Lee.
And you John are unsurprisingly predictable

14 Mar 2011

A side point I.Q. vs intelligent.....stranded in the Kalahari desert I would try to befriend the low I.Q. bushman not the japanese bloke with the calculator....intelligence is I believe the ability to process the information you're given, under these circumstances the geek is as intelligent as your average potato....not able to process the information correctly you see
I.Q. tests measure the computing ability of the brain and as you say it differs,as with many things in life circumstance is a great leveller or not as the circumstance allows
And can I also apologise to Rob for the massive tangent his topic has been taken on

14 Mar 2011

If this IQ thing is stable how come average IQ goes up in fact I recall people in the USA being saved from the death penalty cos they have effectively become "retarded" during their time on death row cos the general population scores have gone up.
I have an IQ of 61 by the way.

14 Mar 2011

John for such an intelligent man you seem to be consistently missing a fairly critical point....I haven't and don't question your figures,there is absolutely no need for me to question the many many many almost endless peer reviewed papers you quote..just their conclusions ...you have tunnel vision as do your sources, you and they are determined that genetics is the answer, it is but only partly.
You insist that I.Q. scores are the way to measure some-ones potential for success (which you measure by accumulated wealth) when a simple trip to your local newsagent to browse their magazines would lead even the most unreasonable of people to believe that the converse is just as likely...It obvious to even the casual observer that the truth is that a high I.Q. may lead to success and wealth in certain areas of life but is meaningless in others...there are you see other factors involved (well I know you don't see or is that refuse)
You can spend the rest of your life calling me any kind of name you want,BUT at least I'm prepared to look at the evidence that surrounds me and not ignore my own common sense in favour of some second hand conclusions from people with an axe to grind...geneticists you see want genetics to be the reason, sociologists want society to be the answer...the answer in all probability is somewhere inbetween.
It is interesting from a behavioural point of view that the more I question your conclusions the more abusive you get...would you care to posit a reason for this ??
It is interesting that the more I question you the less you answer my points
If John you don't like to have your massive intellect sorry that's I.Q. score questioned you may eventually come to realise you are most certainly in the wrong place.
You obviously have no answers just another set of figures....they are open to interpretation
Have fun with your sums
I'm finished with you

15 Mar 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
John for such an intelligent man you seem to be consistently missing a fairly critical point....I haven't and don't question your figures,there is absolutely no need for me to question the many many many almost endless peer reviewed papers you quote..just their conclusions ...you have tunnel vision as do your sources, you and they are determined that genetics is the answer, it is but only partly.
You insist that I.Q. scores are the way to measure some-ones potential for success (which you measure by accumulated wealth) when a simple trip to your local newsagent to browse their magazines would lead even the most unreasonable of people to believe that the converse is just as likely...It obvious to even the casual observer that the truth is that a high I.Q. may lead to success and wealth in certain areas of life but is meaningless in others...there are you see other factors involved (well I know you don't see or is that refuse)
You can spend the rest of your life calling me any kind of name you want,BUT at least I'm prepared to look at the evidence that surrounds me and not ignore my own common sense in favour of some second hand conclusions from people with an axe to grind...geneticists you see want genetics to be the reason, sociologists want society to be the answer...the answer in all probability is somewhere inbetween.
It is interesting from a behavioural point of view that the more I question your conclusions the more abusive you get...would you care to posit a reason for this ??
It is interesting that the more I question you the less you answer my points
If John you don't like to have your massive intellect sorry that's I.Q. score questioned you may eventually come to realise you are most certainly in the wrong place.
You obviously have no answers just another set of figures....they are open to interpretation
Have fun with your sums
I'm finished with you

The above is spot on :thumbup:
The thing that Stags has to back up his point of view is life experience
I believe IQ to be a very narrow vision
I could take my 10 year old son out into the woods/moores/mountains with nothing in the possession, and leave him there, by nightfall he would have shelter, fire and food in his belly. Many with a very high IQ, would be , in bad weather conditions, dead before daybreak. We know this to be true because we have all met them during life.

15 Mar 2011

"Very high intelligence actually negatively correlates with career success (Kotter), probably because smart people enjoy solving problems, rather than making money selling things -- which outside of quant trading, show business and sport is really the only way of being really successful."

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Studies show that the academic high flyers i.e. those who achieve 1st degrees or supposedly those with the highest I.Q. have a tendency to fail in life (there are certain notable exceptions) they have no social skills you see

"There are many factors aside from intelligence that impact success in business or investing."
"Bill Gates scored 1580 on the pre-1995 SAT. His IQ is clearly >> 145 and possibly as high as 160 or so.
Warren Buffett graduated high school at 16 ranked in the top 5 percent of his class despite devoting substantial effort to entrepreneurial activities. Most people who know him well refer to him as brilliant, that folksy quote above notwithstanding. I would suggest the evidence is strong that his IQ is above 135, perhaps higher than 145.
Carlos Slim studied engineering and taught linear programming while still an undergraduate at UNAM, the top university in Mexico. He reportedly discovered the use of compound interest at age 10. I would suggest his IQ is also at least 135."
Just guessing really then ??

Quote by john469
Intelligence is demonstrably linked to financial and academic achievement

Quote by john469
I have never said wealth accumulation was an absolute indicator of intelligence,

I must have just read it wrong then....you want to change your yardstick ??

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I'm finished with you

This time I mean it....bye

15 Mar 2011

In the absence of Markz.......have we solved it yet? rolleyes

15 Mar 2011

Obviously not confused

15 Mar 2011

Quote by Max777
Obviously not

Don't think this one will ever be solved Max .....for my part I'm prepared to let you and everyone else reach their own conclusions
I am curious though as to who this Moran is that keeps being quoted

15 Mar 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Obviously not

Don't think this one will ever be solved Max .....for my part I'm prepared to let you and everyone else reach their own conclusions
I am curious though as to who this Moran is that keeps being quoted
Can't help you there Staggers, although it's a safe bet it's not Ronnie Moran!

15 Mar 2011

Please moderate your comments and behaviour to bring them in line with the site AUP. If you can't do that then you may find moderation is forced upon you.

16 Mar 2011

this is so much fun.
there seams to be a few " leftie losers " around. lol

tee anyone?

9 Apr 2011

Having said I was done with this I've just stumbled upon this....

Not I'll admit an in depth scientific study....but enlightening all the same

9 Apr 2011

but for the fact john469 seems to have reasonable command of the English language, I'd have sworn he was gulson incognito wink

No, actually, that's not possible. He talks of Moran's and not phuckers...
I always thought it was morons *wanders off muttering* bolt

I rather like debating things with staggers to be honest. At least you know where you stand with him and he's always pleasant - in his own cutting edge way lol

10 Apr 2011

Quote by GnV
but for the fact john469 seems to have reasonable command of the English language, I'd have sworn he was gulson incognito
No, actually, that's not possible. He talks of Moran's and not phuckers...
I always thought it was morons *wanders off muttering*
I rather like debating things with staggers to be honest. At least you know where you stand with him and he's always pleasant - in his own cutting edge way

the
the urban dictionary has probably the best explanation of the word and its covert use :dry:

10 Apr 2011

the puppets in westminster should cut all public sector pensions that the public sector workers paid a higher percentage of their salary into and give the balance to the banks who squandered zillions in bad loans, so that bankers can have record bonuses and millions in pensions. (trickle down theory)
all benefits and entitlements, state pensions and armed forces pay should be cut. all state capital projects should cease and there should be an increase in interest paid to the city for existing p.f.i. contracts. (cost and efficiency savings to make us more competitive)
all prisons should be privatised (sold to the city), all prisoners should be organised into work gangs and prison officers put on the minimum wage. (profit centres)
all armed forces personel should provide their own boots and uniforms and employed under private (the city) agency conditions. as and when required to steal natural resources and kill johnny foriegners. (to be notified by e-mail)
all debt, foriegn and domestic, should be passed from the corrupt financial institutions to the corrupt politicians (government) and on to the citizenry, their children and grandchildren. (they never had it so good anyway).
these measures will put the world financial and monetary system (which is broken) right and increase aggregate demand and we will all benefit thereafter.
REPUDIATE THE DEBT. ITS A FRAUD AND NO AMOUNT OF AUSTERIRTY WILL FIX THE DEBT CRISIS.
THESE POLICIES BEING IMPOSED UPON US WILL BRING POVERTY, DESPARATION, WAR AND GENECIDE !
stop blaming your neighbour and wake up.

10 Apr 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
If this IQ thing is stable how come average IQ goes up in fact I recall people in the USA being saved from the death penalty cos they have effectively become "retarded" during their time on death row cos the general population scores have gone up.
I have an IQ of 61 by the way.

I very much doubt that, Ben. The average is 100 and you don't come across as being in the lowest 40% (or whatever 61 equates to) of the population. Given your developed arguments and discussions on here I would hazard a guess at no less than 100 - but given the limited acces to info I could be wildly off.
IQ cannot be increasing - it isn't possible. As mentioned above, 100 is defined as the average IQ of the population. It is 'normalised' to a score of 100, meaning that half the population (I'm assuming the population is large enough and amorphous enough for the average to be both the median and mean for the mathologists among you) is always above 100 and half is always below. For the population to be arranged that more than half are above average is mathematically impossible.
I'm not sure if brain-power is increasing either - as in mental capability. What I do think is that in developed countries at least, the exposure to information (good, bad and indifferent) is rocketing and thus we can appear to be more intelligent when in fact all we are doing is working with more 'stuff'. Think of it as Lego. Give me 10 pieces (facts) and I will create a handful of models (theories). Give me 1,000,000 pieces and I will create the world. (Megalomaniac mode off) I'd also be called Stephen since I would be either Stephen Fry or Stephen Hawking. :giggle:

10 Apr 2011

If Stephen Hawking were to sit these much lauded IQ tests without assisitance, what would he score?

10 Apr 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
If Stephen Hawking were to sit these much lauded IQ tests without assisitance, what would he score?

probably higher than if he were given assistance wink

10 Apr 2011

Im quite serious, I understand how they work, I just wondered as they are an "average of the population" how those with practical difficulties with the tests fare.

10 Apr 2011

Quote by Ben_welshminx
Im quite serious, I understand how they work, I just wondered as they are an "average of the population" how those with practical difficulties with the tests fare.

My response is equally serious Ben. Steven Hawking has made a pretty fine job of overcoming what you describe as "practical difficulties" to the extent he is probably more able than some of us so called "normal" people!
What is "normal" anyway? How can you define it? His spacial capacity is amazing. Does he have difficulty in articulating his inner thoughts? Absolutely not.

24 Apr 2011

Quote by gulsonroad30664
REPUDIATE THE DEBT. ITS A FRAUD AND NO AMOUNT OF AUSTERIRTY WILL FIX THE DEBT CRISIS.

I remember asking you about this. How do we go about repudiating the debt and what if any consequences would we face. I can't remember if you ever actually told me now dunno

Quote by gulsonroad30664
THESE POLICIES BEING IMPOSED UPON US WILL BRING POVERTY, DESPARATION, WAR AND GENECIDE !

Is this Britain or world wide? If you are talking world wide then looking over the last 100 years there has never been a time when this was not happening or just happened. This is why you are so consistent.........it's because your statements are not specific enough that you can claim you did not mean that. Now I would be impressed if you could date the things and where they are going to happen. Having a whole world to choose from seems easy to pick a bit from here and there and then say "Told you I was right". Smacks a bit of Nostradamus to me. I also noticed that you used a natural disaster (Japan) as a cause of what is happening........how did that slip in? I know the banks are powerful...........but surely not that powerful? Or are they?
Dave_Notts

24 Apr 2011

I have not read the whole thred, sorry.
But this subject winds me up, I'm I a civil servant with a final salary pension and it is currently worth £5600 Pa with. Lump sum @65yrs
Please please don't think we are well off as civil servants please.
I don't have a bowler hat either! But if requested I can see! wink

just please remember for ever civil servant you see earning 150k there are thousands earning less than 18k
Sorry rant over just fed up of the bad press, we work hard....... X

3 May 2011

hi all
i would just like to say as much as public sector pensions need to change,why should those who are all ready in it have to have it changed ? i have paid in to mine for 21 years at 11% of my wage, i dont complain about this contrbution, but it is a big chunk from my wage, but will give me a comfortable you see it does not come free be cause of the contribution i make as many other public workers do!Yes change but for new workers joining! i signed a contract for this, if it changes then democracy means nothing!!! as MPs can just change the goal post to suit the budget! i am not money motivated hence i am in public sector work so please try to understand why we our upset with these changes!MPs only have to work 5 years in office to gain a full pension! is this domocracy or a dictatorship to suit the rich? happy for constructive comments back as there are other factors in this subject Thanks

3 May 2011

Interesting and contrasting couple of posts
All that`s wrong about public sector pensions is explained in the first post per year to live on blink

Then we have the second one: i gather you (karentv) also have the type of pension that is index linked to the cost of living (something you can`t get as a non public sector worker ) rolleyes

whist you argue that you have paid in 11% of you wages into it ,there are people out there that are paying a dam site more than that, who will probably get just a little more than gtbee and not what was promised by the pension company`s who sold them the pension
Then we have those with a short fall in pensions after brown raided the pensions who`s retirement is fucked
i know the government has changed the goal post`s, (boo hoo ) but as a tax payer, if i`m paying taxes to help someone in retirement,then i`d rather it go to someone who cant afford to turn the gas on ,and not the likes of you who will probably sun your arse for 6 months in spain whilst its cold
public service pensions are unsustainable in their current format and need to be changed but not in a way where everyone looses
but so the likes of gtbee gets a better one and those who get a reasonable pension like your self are not made fatter with the help of the overburdened tax payer
jmho

3 May 2011

always assuming of course that you live long enough to collect it wink