Are Europeans brighter than Americans?

Are Europeans brighter than Americans?

This guy that commented my new blog seems convinced that Europe has brighter people than the U.S. does. He also mentioned that the majority of intellectuals we do have come from other countries. Well...I guess he means this generation because technically most of us living here are from different countries.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Are U.S. citizens really less intellectual than Europeans? What about other countries? If you believe one country is more intelligent than another, what did you do to come up with your information?

Thanks and have a great weekend!

oh those generalisations ... there plenty of idiots and morons in europe too

I used to think so ...

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

oh those generalisations ... there plenty of idiots and morons in europe too

A quick glance at EU finances shows that.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Are U.S. citizens really less intellectual than Europeans?

On average? I doubt it.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

What about other countries?

That would make a tiny little bit more sense since it cuts down on the hugely diverse mess that europe is but, seriously, I don't think so.
First we'd have to establish what 'intellectuality' is, how to measure it etc.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

If you believe one country is more intelligent than another, what did you do to come up with your information?

How do you measure intelligence? IQ tests tend to be culturally biased and they can be trained so getting actually comparable information from different tests is kind of pointless.

This is so wide open and endless I suspect?

Originally posted by Macallan:

How do you measure intelligence? IQ tests tend to be culturally biased and they can be trained so getting actually comparable information from different tests is kind of pointless.

I agree, and IQ tests only measure logic-based reasoning which is not the only element of intelligence.

Initially, I made this post because I received this as a comment to one of my blogs:

I know for sure U.S. have a lot of intellectuals, a lot of them(if not most) coming from other countries because you can't produce enough there. And those countries have still enough brains for the internal use. Europeans are for sure brighter than Americans. And I'm not being subjective. It's plain reality.

When I questioned him on how he measures 'brightness' he adamantly responded with:

You measure the brightness of people interacting with them. With many. And based on your experience and the experience of other people(who you know very good) you can tell. Generally, and I mean "generally" Americans are not very bright. Let alone the big lack of culture you have there.

I was just wondering if anyone else felt this way.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Originally posted by Macallan:

How do you measure intelligence? IQ tests tend to be culturally biased and they can be trained so getting actually comparable information from different tests is kind of pointless.

I agree, and IQ tests only measure logic-based reasoning which is not the only element of intelligence.

Actually they only measure your skill in solving IQ test puzzles. From what I've seen they all fall into a handful categories and if you figured them out your score will improve quite a bit. What might be interesting is to see how people with different backgrounds do with different kinds of logic puzzles.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Initially, I made this post because I received this as a comment to one of my blogs:

I know for sure U.S. have a lot of intellectuals, a lot of them(if not most) coming from other countries because you can't produce enough there. And those countries have still enough brains for the internal use. Europeans are for sure brighter than Americans. And I'm not being subjective. It's plain reality.

Well, american universities are in fact full of foreigners. What I've seen from european universities that's less so. But that doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the average joe's intelligence since there's a lot of different factors involved here. For example, in Germany people don't pay tuition at universities ( there are a few privately owned schools which do charge craploads of money but in terms of students that's a tiny minority ) and that's the same in a few other european countries. The idea was to give everyone a chance, not just those with money to spare so I bet the percentage of germans who went to university is higher than that of americans for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

When I questioned him on how he measures 'brightness' he adamantly responded with:

You measure the brightness of people interacting with them. With many. And based on your experience and the experience of other people(who you know very good) you can tell. Generally, and I mean "generally" Americans are not very bright. Let alone the big lack of culture you have there.

The obvious problem here is to get a representative sample of a decent size. So, a couple thousand people from all over the place in both populations at the very least. I doubt anyone here or elsewhere has that kind of personal experience. Also, that way to 'measure' is 100% subjective and prone to cultural bias.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

I was just wondering if anyone else felt this way.

As far as I can tell the idiot quote is pretty much the same on both sides of the atlantic.

I'm sure it's even

Yes, I'll call it a tie

Given that America is essentially genetically indistinct from Europe, there is no inherent difference. There would seem to be a stronger culture of anti-intellectualism in the US than I see in the EU, but I don't believe I could claim that is anything other than a subjective impression.

It depends on each individual.. I guest
US or European or other countries have more n less intellectual itself..

but then there are things like these

Originally posted by Macallan:

For example, in Germany people don't pay tuition at universities ( there are a few privately owned schools which do charge craploads of money but in terms of students that's a tiny minority ) and that's the same in a few other european countries.

actually you now have to pay 500€/Semester in some Fed. States.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, american universities are in fact full of foreigners. What I've seen from european universities that's less so.

in general that's true, however, here in mannheim we have *lots* of asians who come to study music.

Measuring "brightness" as the level of common dog copulation, then it could be said the US demonstrates a very low level of c.d.c in its TV and Film presentations. That is not to say other ethnic groups are not at a lower level. One has only to experience repetitive commercial advertisements to
realise the level to which the modern man has dimmed in brightness.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

mericans. And I'm not being subjective. It's plain reality.

When I questioned him on how he measures 'brightness' he adamantly responded with:

You measure the brightness of people interacting with them. With many. And based on your experience and the experience of other people(who you know very good) you can tell. Generally, and I mean "generally" Americans are not very bright. Let alone the big lack of culture you have there.

I was just wondering if anyone else felt this way.

The problem is the American schooling system and the media. For any American in particular, but certainly also for Europeans and people from all over the world, I would recommend Lies My Teacher Told Me. The problem illustrated in that book is something any country has to look out for, and in the Netherlands we only barely averted similar one-sidedness in history education a few years ago. American "news" channels don't tell you much about what's going on in the rest of the world. It's not like Americans don't want to know about what's going on in the world, it's just harder to be aware than it is here.

Anyway, that's just knowledge about the world in general and about what's going on in the world right now. That has little to do with "brightness", whatever that may mean.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, american universities are in fact full of foreigners. What I've seen from european universities that's less so. But that doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the average joe's intelligence since there's a lot of different factors involved here. For example, in Germany people don't pay tuition at universities ( there are a few privately owned schools which do charge craploads of money but in terms of students that's a tiny minority ) and that's the same in a few other european countries. The idea was to give everyone a chance, not just those with money to spare so I bet the percentage of germans who went to university is higher than that of americans for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

The idea is less to "give everyone a chance" than to perpetuate a certain elite. If post-secondary education is free, then resources will be so limited that entrance requirements are insanely strict. And students tend to be pigeonholed by the time they're 14 or 15: this one to a "proper" university, this one to welding school.

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

Originally posted by Macallan:

For example, in Germany people don't pay tuition at universities ( there are a few privately owned schools which do charge craploads of money but in terms of students that's a tiny minority ) and that's the same in a few other european countries.

actually you now have to pay 500€/Semester in some Fed. States.

That crap actually passed? I thought that was thrown out by at least some state courts
IIRC at least some states declared these fees illegal ( I'm pretty sure Berlin did )

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, american universities are in fact full of foreigners. What I've seen from european universities that's less so.

in general that's true, however, here in mannheim we have *lots* of asians who come to study music.

Must be something special about that university

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And students tend to be pigeonholed by the time they're 14 or 15: this one to a "proper" university, this one to welding school.

You're going to get a university grant in the US if you're what would be welding-school material in Germany? I don't think so. Anyway, if you were apparently so misjudged at 14 or 15 you can complete VWO after completing HAVO, thus still qualifying for university. I'll bet you can do the same thing in Germany. In many cases if you complete your propedeuse (first year) at a college (high school in Dutch & German, meaning college of a lower level than a university) you can consequently move on to the first year of university, etc. This really isn't that different from the US, except that your potential to afford this is much higher.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And students tend to be pigeonholed by the time they're 14 or 15: this one to a "proper" university, this one to welding school.

You're going to get a university grant in the US if you're what would be welding-school material in Germany? I don't think so.

Yes, you would. If nothing else a person could go to a community college on loans or grants, take remedial courses or whatever, and then transfer to a 4-year university. Happens all the time.

Holy crap now fanfaron tries to lecturebullshit me about german education.
First of all, you're not 'pidgeon-holed' by some sinster power - anyone can go to secondary school and then university. Anyone can do that later on, that's what the german equivalent of community colleges is for. If you pass you can move on, if not you can try again.
Second, that rubbish about 'intrinsically limited resources' - sure, there's a finite number of prospective students any university can accept at any given time. Did I miss something and american universities take unlimited numbers now?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Holy crap now fanfaron tries to lecturebullshit me about german education.
First of all, you're not 'pidgeon-holed' by some sinster power - anyone can go to secondary school and then university. Anyone can do that later on, that's what the german equivalent of community colleges is for. If you pass you can move on, if not you can try again.
Second, that rubbish about 'intrinsically limited resources' - sure, there's a finite number of prospective students any university can accept at any given time. Did I miss something and american universities take unlimited numbers now?

No, they don't. They're just more upfront about it in charging for it without relying on the "we're for education for all" pablum. Which apparently you like to swallow whole.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes, you would. If nothing else a person could go to a community college on loans or grants, take remedial courses or whatever, and then transfer to a 4-year university. Happens all the time.

And the only part of this that's different in Germany is that you'd have less loans pressing down on your shoulders for years.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes, you would. If nothing else a person could go to a community college on loans or grants, take remedial courses or whatever, and then transfer to a 4-year university. Happens all the time.

And the only part of this that's different in Germany is that you'd have less loans pressing down on your shoulders for years.

No, they'll just have the tax burden that means they might be less likely to find a job. The bill's paid somehow, genius.

Originally posted by Macallan:

That crap actually passed? I thought that was thrown out by at least some state courts " width="17" height="17">

IIRC at least some states declared these fees illegal ( I'm pretty sure Berlin did )

there you go

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studiengebühren_in_Deutschland#Berlin

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

Originally posted by Macallan:

That crap actually passed? I thought that was thrown out by at least some state courts " width="17" height="17">

IIRC at least some states declared these fees illegal ( I'm pretty sure Berlin did )

there you go

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studiengebühren_in_Deutschland#Berlin

Ah, yes, I remember that semester ticket stuff ( yeah, I've been away for a while now ). BVG for half a year would cost quite a bit more.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, they'll just have the tax burden that means they might be less likely to find a job. The bill's paid somehow, genius.

You know that's bullshit.

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

there you go

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studiengebühren_in_Deutschland#Berlin

Is that supposed to be a high tuition fee or something? What's supposed to be the problem there?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, they'll just have the tax burden that means they might be less likely to find a job. The bill's paid somehow, genius.

You know that's bullshit.

Awwwww. I shattered one of its illusions...there isn't such a thing as the Education Fairy...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Is that supposed to be a high tuition fee or something? What's supposed to be the problem there?

that's the money you pay for AStA (Allgemeiner Studierendenausschuss) and some other services, like semesterticket; however, you'd still have to pay some 20€, iirc, for the semesterticket, which'd still be waaaaay cheaper than to buy an ordinary monatsticket.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Awwwww. I shattered one of its illusions...there isn't such a thing as the Education Fairy...

Look how much crappier German employment rates are than American ones. I have no choice but to admit that you're entirely right.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Awwwww. I shattered one of its illusions...there isn't such a thing as the Education Fairy...

Look how much crappier German employment rates are than American ones. I have no choice but to admit that you're entirely right.

For 2008-2010. Clever.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

For 2008-2010. Clever.

that's your counter argument?

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

For 2008-2010. Clever.

that's your counter argument?

Yeah. In response to a crap argument. Two years do not an economy make. Come on, use those superior European brain cells.

Alright, show whichever time period you think is relevant. I'm sure you'll find that German unemployment rates are higher if you include the early 1930s. Post-reunification or pre? Here's a graph for the US. I can't find something similar for Germany atm.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Alright, show whichever time period you think is relevant. I'm sure you'll find that German unemployment rates are higher if you include the early 1930s. Post-reunification or pre? Here's a graph for the US. I can't find something similar for Germany atm.

OK, find the one for Germany, compare the two and voila! you have an argument. Get it?

Originally posted by Macallan:

First of all, you're not 'pidgeon-holed' by some sinster power - anyone can go to secondary school and then university. Anyone can do that later on, that's what the german equivalent of community colleges is for. If you pass you can move on, if not you can try again.
Second, that rubbish about 'intrinsically limited resources' - sure, there's a finite number of prospective students any university can accept at any given time. Did I miss something and american universities take unlimited numbers now?

To get back to the main subject, since education is relatively free in Germany, I take it then that the proportion of Germans with university degrees is much much higher than in the US. Does anyone have any numbers?

and i thought you eventually understood where the innovation and the economy boost in US comes from, *sigh*.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

OK, find the one for Germany, compare the two and voila! you have an argument.

No, no you don't. First you have the effects of WW2 and then you have the effects of the re-unification. Anyway, if you look at the numbers it's easy to see that there isn't any kind of consistently higher unemployment rate if you do some quick percentile calculations based on the population of West-Germany. In the 1990s the unemployment rate is consistently higher, and the legacy of the DDR (i.e. massive unemployment) finally seems to be disappearing these days.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

To get back to the main subject, since education is relatively free in Germany, I take it then that the proportion of Germans with university degrees is much much higher than in the US. Does anyone have any numbers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Educational_attainment.jpg
http://www.nationaalkompas.nl/bevolking/scholing-en-opleiding/verschillen-internationaal/

Do note that the statistics regarding many European countries are primarily regarding masters and not so much regarding bachelors since that's a more recent development.

That said, Germany is surprisingly low (i.e. more similar to the US). I wonder if the former DDR plays a role there.

Who's ahead on the SRQ (Snotty Reply Quotient)?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Who's ahead on the SRQ (Snotty Reply Quotient)?

I am. Always. And without any government subsidy.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

No, no you don't. First you have the effects of WW2 and then you have the effects of the re-unification.

Ahhhhhh. So NOW we get qualifications galore.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That said, Germany is surprisingly low (i.e. more similar to the US).

Imagine my surprise.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Ahhhhhh. So NOW we get qualifications galore.

Uh yeah, ever hear about how the Allies stole all German patents post-WW2 and how they didn't even allow Germany a proper currency? Until the 1950s were well underway there's obviously no comparison. And as far as the re-unification goes, imagine if Mexico suddenly became one or more US states and what that would do to the US numbers for the whole country. DESPITE all of that it wasn't even that different between the US and Germany.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Imagine my surprise.

You might also take a look at some other countries on that comparison.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Ahhhhhh. So NOW we get qualifications galore.

Uh yeah, ever hear about how the Allies stole all German patents post-WW2 and how they didn't even allow Germany a proper currency? Until the 1950s were well underway there's obviously no comparison. And as far as the re-unification goes, imagine if Mexico suddenly became one or more US states and what that would do to the US numbers for the whole country. DESPITE all of that it wasn't even that different between the US and Germany.

I dunno, Frenzie. That graph you referenced starts to look like Mt Everest well after WWII. But why would an enlightened socialist economy like East Germany's be some sort of millstone around the West's neck? I don't get it.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Imagine my surprise.

You might also take a look at some other countries on that comparison.

OK, but I doubt the results would be radically different.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Anyway, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Are U.S. citizens really less intellectual than Europeans? What about other countries? If you believe one country is more intelligent than another, what did you do to come up with your information?

Perceived reality it's fundamental to create individual understanding of the world and therefore to understand and locate ourselves. If it's equal to reality or not isn't the more important thing.
Anyway attitudes (at the psychological sense) like the one you are referring are very difficult to change since they are a deep constituent part of the groups that we belong. People need to distinguish "we" from the "others" even if this is more pronounced at some cultures than others.

An European saying that Europeans are brighter than Americans (or any similar idea) only has sense at the perceived reality world and it's mechanisms. Most of our believes about the surrounding world and people has the same degree of consistency. We extrapolate from a few, limited cases that we can analyze at more depth (or someone from our "group" has told us) and then we generalize it until some important incongruence happens.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

perceived reality

Ah yes perceived.

Wolffee had a name for that.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, they'll just have the tax burden that means they might be less likely to find a job. The bill's paid somehow, genius.

The less qualification one has, the harder to find a (decent) job.
Imagine the tax burden imposed by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars invested in education.
However you may disagree arguing that more education would leed to a higher unemployment rate

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Come on, use those superior European brain cells.
...
OK, find the one for Germany, compare the two and voila! you have an argument.

A comparison would make little sense. You will only get a flawed result because of the methodology the statistics are based on.

United States unemployment rate statistics are collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since one of the stated goals of monetary policy is maximum employment, the unemployment rate is a sign of the success of the Federal Reserve System.

Like the CPI, the unemployment rate is used as a barometer of the nation's economic health, and thus as a measure of the success of an administration's economic policies. Since 1980, both parties have made progressive changes in the basis for calculating unemployment, so that the numbers now quoted cannot be compared directly to the corresponding rates from earlier administrations, or to the rest of the world.
source

For the fourth quarter of 2004, according to OECD, (source Employment Outlook 2005 ISBN 92-64-01045-9), normalized unemployment for men aged 25 to 54 was 4.6% in the U.S. and 7.4% in France. At the same time and for the same population the employment rate (number of workers divided by population) was 86.3% in the U.S. and 86.7% in France.

This example shows that the unemployment rate is 60% higher in France than in the U.S., yet more people in this demographic are working in France than in the U.S., which is counterintuitive if it is expected that the unemployment rate reflects the health of the labor market.
source

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, they'll just have the tax burden that means they might be less likely to find a job. The bill's paid somehow, genius.

The less qualification one has, the harder to find a (decent) job.
Imagine the tax burden imposed by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars invested in education.
However you may disagree arguing that more education would leed to a higher unemployment rate

Well, there ARE a lot of unemployed Ph.Ds.

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Come on, use those superior European brain cells.
...
OK, find the one for Germany, compare the two and voila! you have an argument.

A comparison would make little sense. You will only get a flawed result because of the methodology the statistics are based on.

Yeah, things get kind of complicated except when extolling European health care at the expense of that in the US.

oh.hell noo/Brighter than Americans?there is no basis for that

I think Americans can be as bright as Europeans or whoever.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I think Americans can be as bright as Europeans or whoever.

good one..

Originally posted by Frenzie:

And as far as the re-unification goes, imagine if Mexico suddenly became one or more US states and what that would do to the US numbers for the whole country.

That would be complicated, even for your argument. Mexico is stunningly wealthy. By all measurements Mexico City is a good place to come and do business in, and wouldn't (despite reputation) be one of the murder hotspots of the US. But then there is the wealth disparity. You could argue that it is the US come full circle....

Originally posted by fanfaron:

If nothing else a person could go to a community college on loans or grants, take remedial courses or whatever, and then transfer to a 4-year university. Happens all the time.

To how many people does that happen? What percentage? That's surely be important in the context of this argument.

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that a free and equal education to degree level (at least) is vital for a true capitalist system to flourish. Anything less and you end up in a world where not all men are born equal....

Originally posted by elizabethtreman:

oh.hell noo/Brighter than Americans?there is no basis for that

NASA has provided that for us. It might be a tossup between the Europeans and Eastern USA, but including Western USA there is no contest. The Canadians and the Scandinavians are pretty dim, though, and none of these can beat the Japanese.

Originally posted by garydenness:

That would be complicated, even for your argument. Mexico is stunningly wealthy. By all measurements Mexico City is a good place to come and do business in, and wouldn't (despite reputation) be one of the murder hotspots of the US. But then there is the wealth disparity. You could argue that it is the US come full circle....

I don't know, are there tons of illegal US citizens in Mexico? Anyhow, of course Mexico is nothing like the former DDR. The point is that it's a major occasion which can't just be dismissed as a minor qualifier. If the Benelux had joined West-Germany to form some new, glorious Germanic Republic the net effect would've been almost zip since the economies are already quite similar and intertwined. The Soviet protectionist ways of doing things made much in the former DDR quickly out-competed by its more efficient western competitors once the market opened up, plus the skills the people had weren't terribly useful in the new economy. You're completely right that nothing of the kind would happen if Mexico were to become a US state, so I suppose it was indeed a poor example.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that a free and equal education to degree level (at least) is vital for a true capitalist system to flourish. Anything less and you end up in a world where not all men are born equal....

I think that should read a fair capitalist system (i.e. one where everyone more or less has the chance to become rich through the capitalist system), not a true capitalist system.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I don't know, are there tons of illegal US citizens in Mexico?

There sure are. But as I said, the issue in Mexico is one of wealth disparity, not lack of wealth. Wealth disparity of course exists everywhere, but Latin America (I'm thinking of Mexico and Brazil in particular) throw up the extremes. I'm sure the same is true in China and India though I am less well informed as to the degrees there.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I think that should read a fair capitalist system (i.e. one where everyone more or less has the chance to become rich through the capitalist system), not a true capitalist system.

Depends how you are reading what capitalism means, or indeed which creed of capitalism one adheres to. For me a true capitalist system is also a fair system. For sure, if your success in life is directly related to the money you're born into, then the system is not fair, and in the long term both individual and state lose out.

All I know for sure is intelligence is not a recipe for success,

Originally posted by Denny77:

All I know for sure is intelligence is not a recipe for success

It sure isn't. You need a good few tablespoons of education, a sprinkling of common sense, two cups of hard work, a pinch of good luck and last but not least a dash of economic stability. Or even growth!

Start reducing the ingredients, and you reduce the chances of success. How does a cheese and tomato pizza taste with no cheese or tomato?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The idea is less to "give everyone a chance" than to perpetuate a certain elite. If post-secondary education is free, then resources will be so limited that entrance requirements are insanely strict. And students tend to be pigeonholed by the time they're 14 or 15: this one to a "proper" university, this one to welding school.

Here's the answer to the OP. Unfortunately large numbers of Americans are this silly. I've yet to see a European this daft, not even our own Mr. Howie.

In fact, American conservatives are so unintelligent as to pay Bristol Plain $15K-$30K for giving speeches on the grounds she choose to have her baby out of wedlock.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Here's the answer to the OP. Unfortunately large numbers of Americans are this silly. I've yet to see a European this daft, not even our own Mr. Howie.

In fact, American conservatives are so unintelligent as to pay Bristol Plain $15K-$30K for giving speeches on the grounds she choose to have her baby out of wedlock.

Do you have any facts on which to base your argument, or only ad hominem attacks and red herrings like Bristol Palin speeches?

Originally posted by garydenness:

To how many people does that happen? What percentage? That's surely be important in the context of this argument.

Quite a few. Mixed results, as with every other country, but the opportunities are there.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that a free and equal education to degree level (at least) is vital for a true capitalist system to flourish. Anything less and you end up in a world where not all men are born equal....

Terrific. I agree. Now tell us how it's to be paid for.

no they're not. im proof

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Quite a few. Mixed results, as with every other country, but the opportunities are there.

Do Americans have the same level of access of the same quality as happens in Europe. I don't know the figures. I imagine the comparison is hard to make on many levels. But as far as education is concerned, those are the comparisons that matter.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Terrific. I agree. Now tell us how it's to be paid for.

Through a 100%, or near as dammit, level of inheritance tax. There you go. You don't need to tell me the issues....I know.

But realistically, through normal routes of taxation. I have no problem with a system that applies a higher rate of taxation against those who go through state sponsored education.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Do Americans have the same level of access of the same quality as happens in Europe. I don't know the figures. I imagine the comparison is hard to make on many levels. But as far as education is concerned, those are the comparisons that matter.

What level of access do Europeans have to top-tier universities? The question would be to compare availability and quality of state universities below the Oxbridge-Harvard-Yale type. After all, the brighter students here are usually awarded scholarships as well.

Originally posted by garydenness:

But realistically, through normal routes of taxation. I have no problem with a system that applies a higher rate of taxation against those who go through state sponsored education.

To be honest, I think at the moment the priority is to get the basic financial houses in order. The same with health care here: I don't really have a philosophical objection to any sort of "public option", we just can't afford it right now.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The question would be to compare availability and quality of state universities below the Oxbridge-Harvard-Yale type. After all, the brighter students here are usually awarded scholarships as well.

No doubts about it. Those universities do not represent the entire university system by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

we just can't afford it right now.

I understand. At the same time, we (the US and Europe) can't afford not to have it right now. It's the future generation who'll be paying it off after all. Are we going to double screw them? Leave them not only with a pile of debt, but without the tools they need to be able to pay it off as well?

Originally posted by garydenness:

I understand. At the same time, we (the US and Europe) can't afford not to have it right now. It's the future generation who'll be paying it off after all. Are we going to double screw them? Leave them not only with a pile of debt, but without the tools they need to be able to pay it off as well?

Yeah, that's the ideal, and it always has been to some extent. The problem has always been turing it into reality.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

In fact, American conservatives are so unintelligent as to pay Bristol Plain $15K-$30K for giving speeches on the grounds she choose to have her baby out of wedlock.

By the way, meh. How much have various lefties been willing to pay Levi Johnston for doing even less?

Originally posted by garydenness:

Through a 100%, or near as dammit, level of inheritance tax. There you go. You don't need to tell me the issues....I know.

OK, I'm never going to live in a country where you have political power.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

OK, I'm never going to live in a country where you have political power.

That's the fairest tax policy possible! I guarantee that there will be a 0% complaint rate from those who have been taxed....

Originally posted by ersi:

In principle, nothing is stopping Americans to become equally bright. Nothing but themselves.

I have been spared.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by garydenness:

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that a free and equal education to degree level (at least) is vital for a true capitalist system to flourish. Anything less and you end up in a world where not all men are born equal....

I think that should read a fair capitalist system (i.e. one where everyone more or less has the chance to become rich through the capitalist system), not a true capitalist system.

Education, equality, and fairness have nothing to do with capitalism. Thus the word "capitalism" should not be there at all.

Capitalism as an economic system is about private property and profit - to become rich, as you said. Riches means you must have lots of poor and average people in the country, so that you could have rich people also. Capitalism cannot be about riches and fairness at the same time.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Are Europeans brighter than Americans?

The question looks as if there were indeed a problem. But I think nothing is stopping Americans to solve it.

Originally posted by ersi:

But I think nothing is stopping Americans to solve it.

Perhaps Europeans are backsliding....things are no better here..I am quite confident of that.

Originally posted by ersi:

Capitalism cannot be about riches and fairness at the same time.

I think it's perfectly fair for someone who takes the (financial) risk to reap the benefits if they arise. Remember, the wage of the employees remains stable while the profit may be quite variable. That means sometimes you might have to pay employees from past profit, while at the same time you might (hopefully) gain a reasonable surplus. If you think the employees work the same amount as the entrepreneur you're grossly mistaken. As a business owner you need to be constantly available for your customers while the employees leave all work behind as soon as their work day's over (unless they wish to work overtime, in which case they're paid a lot extra for that). If you compare all the "overtime" the entrepreneur puts in to if an employee were to put in the same amount of overtime, I wonder if it would even seem like the entrepreneur would make (much) more. And like I said, the entrepreneur has to put that kind of work in all the time.

When you go to large companies (i.e. according to Dutch/European definition over 250 employees), or perhaps to middle-sized companies (over 50 employees), that's where you'll really start getting the possibility that things become unfair.

And if the entrepreneur might relay more work to their employees when they get older and starts focusing mostly on customer relations (and less on the actual work) so they can relax a little more (read: have working hours closer to those of their employees) while still having the same kind of income because the business they built is going well, then I still think that's perfectly fair.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I think it's perfectly fair for someone who takes the (financial) risk to reap the benefits if they arise.

When you are/become rich, where is the risk? When you are/become poor, where is the fairness? As I said, it cannot be about riches and fairness at the same time.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Remember, the wage of the employees remains stable while the profit may be quite variable.

I have heard this talk before, but, having been an employee all my life, I can assure you real life is different. One month you have the salaries, another month you don't, independent of how you perform, think or want. That's life. Well, capitalism I mean. Or don't you know anyone who lost a job in the crisis?

Since this thread should be about how we are bright, act like it.

Originally posted by ersi:

having been an employee all my life

You should have enlisted, Then you would have had a more or less guaranteed job..Do they still have the KJB over there?

Die Amerikaner kommen ursprünglich aus Europa.In den USA gibt es mehr Rassen als in Europa.Es unterscheidet sich nicht ob er ein Asiater oder ein Afrikaner ist.Alle sind die Amerikaner.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

OK, I'm never going to live in a country where you have political power.

100% inheritance tax is about as close to an morally idealistic capitalist position you can get, and like other morally idealistic positions hard to achieve.

The economic arguments for capitalism are well known, but is capitalism morally positive? Is greed really good? If the profits you reap from the system are percentages of the value you have created, a fairly straight-forward argument would say that your riches are well deserved even with poor people around you. If you get rich by doing harm the situation is different. As is the case if you get rich by having rich parents or belonging to some rich elite, then wealth and fairness are no longer related.

Governance it's much more than only economical systems.
When capitalism (or any other economical system) becomes the main governing criterion, disaster it's near. Capitalism it's only a tool, and I think that's a good one but without the craftsman knowing it becomes a dangerous thing.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Do you have any facts on which to base your argument, or only ad homonym attacks and red herrings like Bristol Palin speeches

Oh noes! I mentioned that a Palin might be getting more money then deserved for her speeches! But in, in fact, Liberals do have higher IQ's then conservatives, Sarah Palin's low SAT score not withstanding.

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated … At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education … and performance on mathematics and reading assessments

source . So, as I've said, anyone paying a rich 19 year old 15,000 to give a speech because she's an unwed mother can't be all that bright, neither can somebody paying to listen to it. Now take an economically and socially disadvantage teenage mother who choose to have her baby instead of aborting, and still managed to go on to college and make a success of her life and you have a much more moving pro-life story. Now having said that, Bristol is probably perfectly intelligent; after all, she's the one that will be raking in the money by preaching to the choir.

how many men in the UK look at jess and think, hmm i'll agree with what she say and how many men in the US. is that intelligence? i bet jess doesn't answer back as she's too busy painting her nails. lol

Originally posted by ersi:

When you are/become rich, where is the risk? When you are/become poor, where is the fairness? As I said, it cannot be about riches and fairness at the same time.

If you are already rich then there's relatively little risk. That doesn't automagically make all entrepreneurs rich. As far as fair goes - I have no idea.

Originally posted by ersi:

I have heard this talk before, but, having been an employee all my life, I can assure you real life is different. One month you have the salaries, another month you don't, independent of how you perform, think or want. That's life. Well, capitalism I mean. Or don't you know anyone who lost a job in the crisis?

You're using fair in the fullest sense of word whereas I'm using it more as comparatively fair, I suppose.

Originally posted by ersi:

Since this thread should be about how we are bright, act like it.

As I said, we aren't any more or less bright. Anyway, frankly you're insulting my parents (and many other people). Life on the entrepreneurial side isn't all you crack it up to be, so follow your own advice I'd say.

Originally posted by jax:

100% inheritance tax is about as close to an morally idealistic capitalist position you can get, and like other morally idealistic positions hard to achieve.

Meanwhile you could just give as much money to your kid as you can while they're alive, in effect mostly taking advantage of those people whose parents die early.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by ersi:

I have heard this talk before, but, having been an employee all my life, I can assure you real life is different. One month you have the salaries, another month you don't, independent of how you perform, think or want. That's life. Well, capitalism I mean. Or don't you know anyone who lost a job in the crisis?

You're using fair in the fullest sense of word whereas I'm using it more as comparatively fair, I suppose.

So, you're using the concept 'fair' the same way as 'rich', meaning that for people to be in a 'fair' position, there necessarily have to be people in 'unfair' position. I disagree absolutely, not just comparatively.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by ersi:

Since this thread should be about how we are bright, act like it.

As I said, we aren't any more or less bright. Anyway, frankly you're insulting my parents (and many other people). Life on the entrepreneurial side isn't all you crack it up to be, so follow your own advice I'd say.

Check back, in this thread it was you who first contrasted entrepreneurial side with salaried workers, not me. I am fully aware that investors can become broke too. For me, this is yet another sign of unfairness in capitalism. For you?

As for insulting, I am surprised you take this personally and have such a strong instinct for class struggle. My apologies.

Originally posted by ersi:

Education, equality, and fairness have nothing to do with capitalism. Thus the word "capitalism" should not be there at all.

Capitalism as an economic system is about private property and profit - to become rich, as you said. Riches means you must have lots of poor and average people in the country, so that you could have rich people also. Capitalism cannot be about riches and fairness at the same time.

Name your economic or political system of choice and I'll tell you why it isn't fair. Life isn't fair. Such is life. I personally prefer a mixed economic system, embracing the most positive aspects of socialist thought and capitalism with limits on each to limit gross 'unfairness'.

In the context of this debate, capitalism could be made, at the least, fairer. By offering everyone equal opportunities in education, employment and the opportunity to do with one's life as one wants. It is only fair, after all.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Do you have any facts on which to base your argument, or only ad homonym attacks and red herrings like Bristol Palin speeches

Oh noes! I mentioned that a Palin might be getting more money then deserved for her speeches! But in, in fact, Liberals do have higher IQ's then conservatives, Sarah Palin's low SAT score not withstanding.

You attacked words that sound the same but have different origins and meanings? Shame on you! Bad coon! Why do you hate them so much?!

yes I agree somewhat liberals and demies study Ebonics and rap so they can communicate with each other.....
much of their base stays with Spanish....after all why learn English in a English ,I know loosely, speaking country.

We have quite a few congressman who I need a interpreter for. Hell half the time they can't understand each other.

I understand if I was smarter they would make more sense . I am sure most of you could understand and no doubt agree with..

them

Originally posted by ersi:

So, you're using the concept 'fair' the same way as 'rich', meaning that for people to be in a 'fair' position, there necessarily have to be people in 'unfair' position. I disagree absolutely, not just comparatively.

By your standards I'm currently poor, unless you involve the third world. That doesn't mean I consider myself poor. I know people with tons more money than I do who waste it on all kinds of things (or at least I consider it waste, I suppose they don't or they wouldn't do it...) who then think I'm rich if I don't have to think twice about buying a new freezer because I always make sure to have money put aside for such necessities. Yet I work less and I have less money as a consequence. I won't deny that some people can do and, and, and, and a somewhat smaller number of people can't do much if anything at all, which is unfair, but for the most part it's a matter of how you manage what you've got.

Originally posted by ersi:

Check back, in this thread it was you who first contrasted entrepreneurial side with salaried workers, not me. I am fully aware that investors can become broke too. For me, this is yet another sign of unfairness in capitalism. For you?

Of course it's unfair. Such is life. When I say capitalism I mean the way it is here now (i.e. post-'60s), not capitalism in a wider or perhaps even Anglo-Saxon sense. I haven't got a clue about capitalism as it is in... Estonia?

Originally posted by ersi:

As for insulting, I am surprised you take this personally and have such a strong instinct for class struggle. My apologies.

I suppose I took this the wrong way: "I have heard this talk before, but, having been an employee all my life, I can assure you real life is different." I'll take your apology, and I hope you'll take mine, though I'm not quite sure what class struggle you're talking about. I hope I'm not being some liberal dick.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

So, as I've said, anyone paying a rich 19 year old 15,000 to give a speech because she's an unwed mother can't be all that bright, neither can somebody paying to listen to it. Now take an economically and socially disadvantage teenage mother who choose to have her baby instead of aborting, and still managed to go on to college and make a success of her life and you have a much more moving pro-life story. Now having said that, Bristol is probably perfectly intelligent; after all, she's the one that will be raking in the money by preaching to the choir.

Bristol Palin must be fairly bright. She's raking in some serious dough while we spout off on an online forum. And I couldn't care less about comparison of liberal vs conservative IQs. If liberals were so damn smart, they'd know how to balance a checkbook (see the budgets of NYC and CA); if conservatives were so damn smart, they'd know better than to go to war in places like Iraq.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Oh noes! I mentioned that a Palin might be getting more money then deserved for her speeches! But in, in fact, Liberals do have higher IQ's then conservatives, Sarah Palin's low SAT score not withstanding.

You still haven't looked up the definition of "red herring", I guess.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

If liberals were so damn smart, they'd know how to balance a checkbook (see the budgets of NYC and CA); if conservatives were so damn smart, they'd know better than to go to war in places like Iraq.

Put like that it sounds straight from 1984.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

If liberals were so damn smart, they'd know how to balance a checkbook (see the budgets of NYC and CA); if conservatives were so damn smart, they'd know better than to go to war in places like Iraq.

Put like that it sounds straight from 1984.

It's timeless.

Americans biggest class in our "caste" system is the middle class. The middle class and poor class have access to public schools which I myself am a product of (both the middle class and public schools) and these are paid for by local taxes.

So if you take that into account "most" Americans are educated. Also, the rich is the minority, not the majority!

As far as who is smarter or stupider? I still say it's about equal

(Public schools are two quite different beasts in the US and the British systems.)

As long as you can feed yourself and care for yourself,nothing else matters` is one better than the other` sounds like trouble. I suppose theres always going to be someone who feels the need to be better than another its in the genes,The poorest people in the world are the cleverest take away all you have for a month and see if you survive.

Originally posted by jax:

Public schools are two quite different beasts in the US and the British systems.

The British wording is entirely consistent. Public schools are just like public telephones. Anyone can use them, so long as they have the cash and can pass the exam.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Originally posted by jax:

Public schools are two quite different beasts in the US and the British systems.

The British wording is entirely consistent. Public schools are just like public telephones. Anyone can use them, so long as they have the cash and can pass the exam.

Um, I dunno. There are also public parks that you can use without paying directly to do so. That's the sense of the word "public" here.

Intelligence is to a large extent genetically determined, and given that white Americans and Europeans are from the same genes (most of them anyways), it is certain to say that they have the same capacity for intelligence. Western Europe was the pinnacle of society and intelligence for many centuries, with some notable exceptions, and now America is at least Europe's equal. And I see no reason to believe that Hispanic people and African people would have less intelligence.

America does excel over Europe in many areas, including computer engineering, aeronautical engineering, and many other forms of engineering, which is why the computers the Europeans are on right now are running Intel or AMD processors, both American companies. In fact, America invented the vast majority of computer hardware. Europe, however, had Turing, who was amazing. We've also been to the moon several times while no other country has been.

I am not saying America is smarter than Europe, or that Americans are smarter than Europeans, but I am saying that America has at least earned its right to say that we are equals in capacity for intelligence and in cultivation and application of that capacity.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

America does excel over Europe in many areas, including computer engineering, aeronautical engineering, and many other forms of engineering, which is why the computers the Europeans are on right now are running Intel or AMD processors, both American companies.

Want a dick contest? While we're at it, guess which CPU architecture sells the most units. Hint: It was developed in Cambridge, UK, mostly because Intel was to arrogant to sell a small british computer company a licence to make 286-compatible CPUs. Years later, in a rare case of poetic justice, they sold a licence to Intel.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

When I questioned him on how he measures 'brightness' he adamantly responded with:

In my neck of the woods we check their wattage.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Want a dick contest?

No need to get defensive man. I am just saying that we are equals. We both have accomplishments.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Want a dick contest?

No need to get defensive man.

/me points at the invisible smileys in the previous post

No contests of that nature please: I don't want to see pics of people's naughty bits

Originally posted by starree:

No contests of that nature please: I don't want to see pics of people's naughty bits

So far it's a purely metaphorical ( and not exactly serious ) dick contest. The only pictures of naughty bits you're going to see are chip porn:

( and in that case smaller is almost always better )

Did the thread starter jessheartsben have some particular reason for starting this one or was it just a discussion point for general harmless chat? I notice little participation by the starter.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Of course it's unfair. Such is life. When I say capitalism I mean the way it is here now (i.e. post-'60s), not capitalism in a wider or perhaps even Anglo-Saxon sense. I haven't got a clue about capitalism as it is in... Estonia?

Well, if you mean capitalism is somehow essentially different in different parts of EU, you should inform yourself. EU is exactly about uniform capitalism, otherwise you can't become a member. I have direct extensive experience with Nordic countries and what we have here. The differences in the social security systems (the "socialist" part) are considerable, while the capitalism (relationships of the state, industries/enterprises and working people) functions quite the same way.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I'll take your apology, and I hope you'll take mine, though I'm not quite sure what class struggle you're talking about.

This post of yours is a solid overview of the society based on class struggle (= contrast or opposition of employees vs the employed). You could call it the classical anti-Marxist theory. The concepts are the same as in Marxism, only the basic underlying hypothesis is that class struggle is "good" or necessary and must never end. Where Marx suggested elimination of the capitalists from power in favour of the working class, the anti-Marxist emphasis is on the inevitability of the working class to worship capitalists as the "better" class. Or, as you put it, those who do the real work:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

If you think the employees work the same amount as the entrepreneur you're grossly mistaken.

To my perception, Marx described the essence of class struggle correctly, while you are wrong on each and every assertion. Such as this:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I work less and I have less money as a consequence.

Really? Amount of money and amount of work have never correlated in any way, not even for a second. The historical example are sovereigns, the most obvious current example are investors, who put in zero work, but can rake in money in such amounts that they choke on it. But probably you regard gambling as work. I don't consider poker or similar to be work at all. Entertainment, yes, probably sports, but never work.

So, it's a matter of opposing world views. Marx was right on the analysis, but wrong on his conlusions and remedies. The "liberal view" ('liberal' by European definitions, some have called the related economic theories Marginalism - see if you can relate) is just plain reactionary and wrong from the beginning to the end. Can you guess which side I'm on? Neither.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Did the thread starter jessheartsben have some particular reason for starting this one or was it just a discussion point for general harmless chat? I notice little participation by the starter.

She did the bright thing and took off after the first answer to her liking.

Originally posted by ersi:

Well, if you mean capitalism is somehow essentially different in different parts of EU, you should inform yourself. EU is exactly about uniform capitalism, otherwise you can't become a member. I have direct extensive experience with Nordic countries and what we have here. The differences in the social security systems (the "socialist" part) are considerable, while the capitalism (relationships of the state, industries/enterprises and working people) functions quite the same way.

If you put it like that then capitalism is the same pretty much anywhere and all that's different are things that aren't capitalism. No need to get your panties up in a bunch about it.

Originally posted by ersi:

The concepts are the same as in Marxism, only the basic underlying hypothesis is that class struggle is "good" or necessary and must never end.

I didn't say that. In fact, I think the system sucks. But none of the Marxist (inspired) solutions strike me as very good.

Originally posted by ersi:

Really? Amount of money and amount of work have never correlated in any way, not even for a second. The historical example are sovereigns, the most obvious current example are investors, who put in zero work, but can rake in money in such amounts that they choke on it.

Well, that's true. If I had more money I could make money by doing almost nothing. However, the regular income tax still applies to money obtained that way.

Originally posted by ersi:

But probably you regard gambling as work.

That depends on what you mean by gambling.

Originally posted by ersi:

So, it's a matter of opposing world views. Marx was right on the analysis, but wrong on his conlusions and remedies. The "liberal view" ('liberal' by European definitions, some have called the related economic theories Marginalism - see if you can relate) is just plain reactionary and wrong from the beginning to the end. Can you guess which side I'm on? Neither.

Sounds good so far.

Originally posted by Macallan:

The only pictures of naughty bits you're going to see are chip porn:

Oh you're a bad little IC, aren't you? You want voltage running out of all of your pins, huh? I am going to ground the hell out of you.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

There are also public parks that you can use without paying directly to do so. That's the sense of the word "public" here.

Damned commies!

Originally posted by ersi:

Well, if you mean capitalism is somehow essentially different in different parts of EU, you should inform yourself. EU is exactly about uniform capitalism, otherwise you can't become a member.

The EU member states all operate mixed economies. The economy of the UK is not run the same same as the economy of France, for example. Don't get me started on Greece...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

But none of the Marxist (inspired) solutions strike me as very good.

....and that is why the have short lives.. Nice observation Frenzie my lad.
and as far as I know have never lined up to expectations.. Although communes in 60's were nice if you wanted free and open sex..

I personally think that in general Europeans are not more intellectual or smarter than people of the United States. But truly being an intellectual is an individual thing. Its quite unfair to lump all of the Americans and Europeans together, because well, not all Americans are smart, but then again neither are all Europeans.

Not to detract from your observation too much but you had already given an answer in the first part then, ehrm, repeated it in a different way in the end?!

Half of all Europeans are below average.
On the other hand, half of all Americans are above average.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm
God damnit, Texas. They're really trying hard to ensure Europe wins in this thread.

another point against US education the power of the sperm

Originally posted by parkerjm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm
God damnit, Texas. They're really trying hard to ensure Europe wins in this thread.

These clowns are the single best argument against putting certain government jobs up for election
( I shudder at the thought of - say - bavarians electing theirs... )

Oh, yes, Texas. Gave us "W".

Originally posted by parkerjm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm
God damnit, Texas. They're really trying hard to ensure Europe wins in this thread.

Yeah, that's idiotic and I hope that somehow it can be rolled back. On the other hand, at the moment Texas seem to be better at basic arithmetic than California, New York, Michigan and several European countries. So...*shrug*

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Did the thread starter jessheartsben have some particular reason for starting this one or was it just a discussion point for general harmless chat? I notice little participation by the starter.

I felt it was a legitimate discussion. I mostly wanted opinions from Europeans to see whether or not they felt this way. As an American and a student at a renowned 4-year university in the U.S., I do NOT feel I am 'brighter' than anyone...no matter what country they are from. I also do not feel that a person's intelligence is something that should only be measured in a logical way.

As far as my participation in this thread...I believe it is the same as my overall participation on this forum. I'm not online that often and when I am I am usually on Facebook. I do read this forum about twice a week though and I do try to contribute!

Thanks for that.

am in love with your postings

can we be friends?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Here's the answer to the OP. Unfortunately large numbers of Americans are this silly. I've yet to see a European this daft, not even our own Mr. Howie.

In fact, American conservatives are so unintelligent as to pay Bristol Plain $15K-$30K for giving speeches on the grounds she choose to have her baby out of wedlock.

Do you have any facts on which to base your argument, or only ad hominem attacks and red herrings like Bristol Palin speeches?

The problem is too many Americans lack critical thinking skills. You can get a university education and still be functionally an idiot.

How many other countries have the issues we have?

The resistance to a decent public health system where millions of Americans are fighting to keep healthcare under the aegis of private insurers in order to prevent government "socialistic" health care. A no brainer worked out by all the other industrial democracies.

The large number who believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago with many local school boards presenting that viewpoint as the valid alternative to be taught in science classes.

The resistance to global warming which seems to be concentrated in the US.

The significant number who believe that Obama was not born here and that he is a socialist intent upon destroying our system of capitalism.

We have Obama trying to move us to the present with the high speed rail initiative. And the result is: To be killed by local governments.
Rail Service Expansion Imperiled At State Level

The shoddiness, cheapness and bs in public work project. We had the giant flood in New Orleans. What do we do? We have local and national days of prayer thanking the guy in the sky for still being alive and asking him to not allow any more floods. The we rebuilt the levees to be not much better than before. Why is that accepted? Why is a real commitment, real work not being done such as the Dutch delta project?

So, where's all the intelligence?

I blame religion.

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Europe has brighter people than the U.S. does.

Quite true the brightness effect can be clearly seen at night down wind of Chernobyl and in those who have eaten vegetables grown down wind.

I knew an American who was admanant that the USA won WW2 in Europe with anyone else playing a bit part. Made me wonder about US education. But there again always being fair about America I have an open mind.........

I don't think it's a case of whose brighter. Put quite simply, America is big. Very, very big. With a very, very big ego.

Geography, World History, and European languages, are all compulsory classes in Ireland. In America, students get to choose what subjects to do. This often leads to students choosing 'mess' subjects, such as choir, or music. Which pulls away from learning about World History, and Geography. Both of which, in modern society, are essential for accepting and understanding cultures. For example, in Ireland, we do US History. I know more about US History than my girlfriend, who is American. However, in America, where History is not optional, the majority of Americans couldn't even point out Ireland on a map. Let alone recognize the names 'Michael Collins', 'Eamon De Valera', or 'The Free State'. The vast majority of Americans I know didn't even know Ireland was a free country until I told them.

The difference between Americans and Europeans? It's not that Europeans are more intelligent, or 'brighter', as it is put in the debate. It is simply that Europeans know a little about everything, and Americans know a lot about one thing - mainly, themselves.

I think the song American Idiot sums it up nicely....

After reading what Americans have to say on the Internet, it's clear they are a nation of gullible, paranoid dimwits. I even met a guy that would not fly because of the fear of terrorism!!! Clearly too stupid to actually make an educated risk analysis himself and had to rely on Fox News to do that for him...

Originally posted by grysmn:

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

Europe has brighter people than the U.S. does.

Quite true the brightness effect can be clearly seen at night down wind of Chernobyl and in those who have eaten vegetables grown down wind.

Wow. That's a very intelligent response. Instead of proving the OP wrong, you decided to insult something that happened in the Soviet Union, which is mostly in Asia. Bravo

Tell me, do you mock the people of Nagasaki equally?

Originally posted by garydenness:

Don't get me started on Greece

No, I will get you started on Greece. Please explain how Greece is not a capitalist country.

Mixed Economy's are what stops us all get f*cked in the ass by big corporations. They are not communist in anyway shape or form, and if you really think they are, read a g'damn book.

Originally posted by clashcityrocker:

I think the song American Idiot sums it up nicely....

After reading what Americans have to say on the Internet, it's clear they are a nation of gullible, paranoid dimwits. I even met a guy that would not fly because of the fear of terrorism!!! Clearly too stupid to actually make an educated risk analysis himself and had to rely on Fox News to do that for him...

You might want to think about the source of the song.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by clashcityrocker:

I think the song American Idiot sums it up nicely....

After reading what Americans have to say on the Internet, it's clear they are a nation of gullible, paranoid dimwits. I even met a guy that would not fly because of the fear of terrorism!!! Clearly too stupid to actually make an educated risk analysis himself and had to rely on Fox News to do that for him...

You might want to think about the source of the song.

Indeed. A whiny American alt. punk rock band is hardly a good role model

I was referring to the fact that the US is home to those spoon-fed by Faux News as well as many, many other things, including Green Day, not to the relative merits of Green Day. I quite like their lyrics at any rate.

Their latest works have made me stop calling them a Punk Rock band, and turned them in a whiny alt. band

Even The Offspring makes emo punk these days. I advise a dose of The Insecurities or some such instead.

Originally posted by clashcityrocker:

gullible, paranoid dimwits

<i>Personal attacks and profanity deleted.</i>

Looks like Alpha wont be the only one banned today

Stick a Harley up his ass also. If I have to take shit from a lying punk so be it.

Originally posted by MConor:

Looks like Alpha wont be the only one banned today

The moderators must be in the pub again - lots of trolling lately with no consequences whatsoever.

Hey. I was having a very nice extended dinner here in Shanghai which, apart from being served my life's first Budweiser (and being too polite to refuse), went down hitchless. No pubs.

But yes, classicdenny77, you should either practice more anger management, or you will have to create another user.

(That said, I am a little dismayed that this thread was revived.)

Originally posted by jax:

Hey. I was having a very nice extended dinner here in Shanghai which, apart from being served my life's first Budweiser (and being too polite to refuse), went down hitchless. No pubs.

Close enough

Originally posted by jessheartsben:

This guy that commented my new blog seems convinced that Europe has brighter people than the U.S. does. He also mentioned that the majority of intellectuals we do have come from other countries. Well...I guess he means this generation because technically most of us living here are from different countries.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Are U.S. citizens really less intellectual than Europeans? What about other countries? If you believe one country is more intelligent than another, what did you do to come up with your information?

Thanks and have a great weekend!

Depends on which decade you want to examine. And within each decade, it varies with which section of society you're looking at.

And which intellectuals are you asking about? Scientific, social, or... ?

Artists in one area in one era, inventors in another place, demagogues in this other era at that other location.

Right now, things are in flux.

Originally posted by jax:

(That said, I am a little dismayed that this thread was revived.)

This thread should be about memory and I would concede quickly.. sorry Jax I will try to be a better member.. I can't vouch for my true id though.

Originally posted by jax:

my life's first Budweiser

It doesn't seem fair to travel that far only to have a Budweiser forced on you. Condolences.

Actually it wasn't so bad, but it tasted peculiarly unlike beer. More like an ice tea with an off taste and too many bubbles.

Not a confirmed beer drinker, I've never had any European beer, but am determined to find some asap. The mystery is making me crazy.

Most European beer is <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=2355324">bland sprudelwasser</a>, you're probably statistically better off sampling American beer (if you go by label, not sales), plenty of good American beer, as been covered in earlier threads.

The US Budweisser was sufficienty close to water that it didn't interfer with the food, but prevented my tasting of a red I'd rather sample.

Budweiser in China!?

I had some Korean beer decades ago. 'Nuff said.

Are Europeans brighter than Americans?
Let's start collecting evidence.
Do Europeans have a Tea Party?

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

Do Europeans have a Tea Party?

We had the Nazi's

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

Do Europeans have a Tea Party?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

It doesn't seem fair to travel that far only to have a Budweiser forced on you. Condolences.

Indeed

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

Are Europeans brighter than Americans?
Let's start collecting evidence.
Do Europeans have a Tea Party?

Nope, we (they, the inoffensive northerns) have a Pirate Party. They feel adventurous.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

Do Europeans have a Tea Party?

Germany has several wacky little parties which could rival the teabaggers. The votes they get in national elections number in the hundreds

Not from where I'm sitting.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

Do Europeans have a Tea Party?

There is <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/15/tea_parties_of_the_world">Tea Parties of the World</a>. This article is a bit of a hack job in my opinion, but can still be informative.

Don't forget this one! English.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I knew an American who was admanant that the USA won WW2 in Europe with anyone else playing a bit part. Made me wonder about US education. But there again always being fair about America I have an open mind.........

Often.

The sad thing is you can't change their minds. If you mention things like the battle of Kursk they think you're talking about a role playing game.