It does. Read The Bell Curve. These days due to improvements in transportation like the highway system, cars, planes, etc., it's ever more the case that smart people find themselves working, socializing, and having families with smart people. The opposite of this is also true. It's ever more the case that dumb people find themselves working, socializing, and having families with dumb people. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray call this social stratification. Intelligence is extremely highly influenced by genetics and therefore, since it's increasingly the case that dumb people are mating with dumb people and smart people are mating with smart people, it's likely that people are getting dumber and smarter than ever before. There will be a much starker difference between the elite and the downtrodden in the decades to come.

That sounds like opinion. Got anything to back up your claim of

Intelligence is extremely highly influenced by genetics and therefore, since it's increasingly the case that dumb people are mating with dumb people and smart people are mating with smart people, it's likely that people are getting dumber and smarter than ever before.

?

That sounds like opinion. Got anything to back up your claim of



?

The Bell Curve. I don't have it with me, but it doesn't matter. The claims I've made, which is that intelligence is extremely highly influenced by genetics and that smart people much more often find themselves among smart people these days compared to the olden days, cannot be disputed. For example, think of the people who work at Microsoft and Google. Are those examples of places where there are tons of smart people working together, making friends and making families? You bet. What about McDonalds and places like it? Is that an example of a place where there are often lots of dumb people working together, making friends and making families? You bet.

There are also data from the Bell Curve which show that over the years more people who wanted to get into Harvard could go because of the improvements in transportation (for example, someone who is gifted and lives in California could move to Harvard, where decades before it would be impossible) and as a result of this, Harvard continually got picker with those whom they admitted to their schools. Increasingly the IQs and SAT scores of the students increased. Now I'm pretty sure it's in the 130-140 range. Before in the 1900s or so it was like 115. People in these elite colleges then make friends and have families and have super smart kids. Social stratification.

The Bell Curve has been amply repudiated.

http://goinside.com/98/3/postmod.html

The Bell Curve has been amply repudiated.

http://goinside.com/98/3/postmod.html

Can you show me that the two claims I've made are untrue?

You've cited data that has been biased to fit a conclusion. :rolleyes:

Or made unsubstantiated claims based on opinion.

There is a stratification, but it's economic. Smart people without options work at McDonalds and Wall-Mart too.

You've cited data that has been biased to fit a conclusion. :rolleyes:


Still didn't answer my question, as usual.

If you take the time to read the rebuttal I linked, you can locate the answers. Of course, you have to first discard the conservative ideology you cling to.

There is a stratification, but it's economic. Smart people without options work at McDonalds and Wall-Mart too.

I've worked at Wal-Mart before when I was in high school. There wasn't a single smart person there besides some of the young people who were still in high school. Your point is valid nonetheless, however. You can find smart people at those places sometimes. Like if it's a woman working part time so she can add income while being able to take care of the kids. But most of the time in places like that, the people are stoooopid.

If you take the time to read the rebuttal I linked, you can locate the answers. Of course, you have to first discard the conservative ideology you cling to.

Nice job with the ad hom, Sam. Instead of focusing on my argument, you focus on me and my conservative ideology.

I think the decades to come will not continue in this way. Our economy is based on a fossil resource that will not last. Soon the elites will become farmers, and will suffer because they have fallen farther than the poor, for whom the future will bring opportunities.

I've worked at Wal-Mart before when I was in high school. There wasn't a single smart person there

You answered your own question.

I think the decades to come will not continue in this way. Our economy is based on a fossil resource that will not last. Soon the elites will become farmers, and will suffer because they have fallen farther than the poor, for whom the future will bring opportunities.

Sure, it's possible, but if things continue the way we plan them to, it will not happen. As our fossil fuels run out, we'll built nuclear power plants and solar farms, which will require large amounts of brain power, bringing smart people together and leaving the duller populations even duller.

You answered your own question.

Sam, I can take anything you say out of context too and make you look like an ass too. If you're not going to add anything to this conversation except insults and ad homs, why don't you butt out? Are there any moderators out there watching this?

Have I insulted Sam once?

Sam, I can take anything you say out of context too and make you look like an ass too. If you're not going to add anything to this conversation except insults and ad homs, why don't you butt out? Are there any moderators out there watching this?

Have I insulted Sam once?

You answered your own question. Clearly economics is the factor that determines who works in Walmart, rather than brains or IQ. On the other end of the spectrum you have clear morons being elected President because they have the money to promote themselves. I've seen idiots graduate with a PhD because they know know how to kiss ass while brilliant people get out of the program because they were in for the science not the politics. I've seen hard working dumb people who make it and smart intelligent people who throw their lives away. So your assumptions are all flawed.

You answered your own question. Clearly economics is the factor that determines who works in Walmart, rather than brains or IQ. On the other end of the spectrum you have clear morons being elected President because they have the money to promote themselves. I've seen idiots graduate with a PhD because they know know how to kiss ass while brilliant people get out of the program because they were in for the science not the politics. So your assumptions are all flawed.

Precisely what assumptions are flawed?

Precisely what assumptions are flawed?

First, that dumb people only associate with dumb people. PhD grad students work in Walmart to support families.

Second, that intelligent/dumb people marry and breed their own kind. Most of the times, its the reverse. The smartest men marry the dumb blondes.

Third, that intelligence is related to success. There is no definition for intelligence or success. A mad scientist who develops a WMD is worthless compared to a poor farmer who devises a microcredit economy for the people living below the poverty line.

First, that dumb people only associate with dumb people. PhD grad students work in Walmart to support families.
Strawman

Second, that intelligent/dumb people marry and breed their own kind. Most of the times, its the reverse. The smartest men marry the dumb blondes
Can you demonstrate that this is not true? What evidence do you have which shows that intelligent people are more likely to mate with dumb people?

Third, that intelligence is related to success. There is no definition for intelligence or success. A mad scientist who develops a WMD is worthless compared to a poor farmer who devises a microcredit economy for the people living below the poverty line.

You seriously doubt that success and intelligence are related? I'll be back with more on this. I have work to do.

i think that there will be more and more dumb or smart people for a simple reason: darwinism is getting to end (maybe) in humans: everybody starts to get more and more acesso to technology benefits: we have vaccinations, medical care, good foods etc.So everybody have acesso to ways that will extend their spawn of life. Also, almost everybody will find a partner sooner or later. Even ugly people and people with no health or with no inteligence or with weak bodys etc, whatever. I see that very easly around us. We, humans, f*** like rats, besides we have new ways (techology) tu extend our lives.

So,, that means that dumb people will have more kids and then they will generate more dumb people (this is a very quick and simple way to explain things lol..."dumb" people means many things). and smart people will have more kids.

i dont know, this is just a silly idea lol

i think that there will be more and more dumb or smart people for a simple reason: darwinism is getting to end (maybe) in humans: everybody starts to get more and more acesso to technology benefits: we have vaccinations, medical care, good foods etc.So everybody have acesso to ways that will extend their spawn of life. Also, almost everybody will find a partner sooner or later. Even ugly people and people with no health or with no inteligence or with weak bodys etc, whatever. I see that very easly around us. We, humans, f*** like rats, besides we have new ways (techology) tu extend our lives.

So,, that means that dumb people will have more kids and then they will generate more dumb people (this is a very quick and simple way to explain things lol..."dumb" people means many things). and smart people will have more kids.

i dont know, this is just a silly idea lol

1. Why does Darwinism exclude technology?
2. Smart people have less children, they are also less likely to get married.

Strawman

Can you demonstrate that this is not true? What evidence do you have which shows that intelligent people are more likely to mate with dumb people?

You seriously doubt that success and intelligence are related? I'll be back with more on this. I have work to do.

Dysgenic breeding:
More intelligent people have lower sex drives, are less attractive, and therefore have fewer children


Unmarried General Social Survey respondents with a Wordsum score of 6 (the median score) were the least likely to have gone the preceding year without sex. People of average intelligence have the easiest time attracting sex partners. Men in the highest IQ category are the most likely to have to pay a prostitute (http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/smartest_men_mo.html) in order to get sex.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/07/smarter_people_.html

And finally, you're not the first to put forward this "proposal" :

In 1951, C.M. Kornbluth wrote a dysgenic-crisis story called "The Marching Morons," in which generations of underbreeding by intellectual and cultural elites, combined with overbreeding by the poor, uneducated, unsuccessful masses, have led to a world in which the average person is an illiterate moron, incapable of contributing to the upkeep of society. In reality, over successive generations IQs are rising worldwide. Every revision of IQ tests makes them harder, so that the average score will continue to be 100 rather than creeping up to 105, 110, 115.

Moreover, the percentage of Americans who are diagnosed with mental retardation - defined as an IQ below 70 plus substantial difficulties performing necessary skills of daily life - has remained steady for a full century. Hundreds of thousands of "mentally defective" individuals were sterilized under eugenics laws in the first half of this century, yet that practice didn't even cause a blip in the prevalence of mental retardation among children. Nor did the repeal of involuntary sterilization laws cause an increase in mental retardation rates. There is simply no evidence that low IQs or low levels of functional intelligence are increasing in the general population, "dysgenic" breeding habits or not.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html

Wasn't I the one who made this thread?

Did the Mods delete my post?????

Wasn't I the one who made this thread?

Did the Mods delete my post?????

Did you open it in Science and Society? This is the only thread here, opened by francois.

Edit: your thread was cesspooled.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79762

Such synchronicity. I was just going to start a thread about a survey that was reported in this morning's Washington Post. Two Dutch psychologists interviewed people in their early 20s--marriage age--to find out what traits they considered important in a mate, and also what traits their parents considered important. They interviewed Americans, Dutch people and Kurds. The results were surprising, particularly as concerns this discussion.

Four of the five most important traits to the Westerners were:Exciting personality Sense of humor Physical attractiveness SmellFor Americans, the fifth trait was "about the same height" whereas for the Dutch it was "not fat."

Only the Kurds considered intelligence important! They also valued physical fitness, smell, humor and lack of fat.

To parents of all three groups, on the other hand, the most important trait was a similar ethnic background. They also did not want a bad family background, poverty, or divorce. Western parents did not want different religious beliefs.

Westerners and their parents were both turned off by many previous sexual partners, whereas the Kurds put a higher value on education.

The participants in the survey were all students, so the results may not apply to a broader cross-section of the population. Still, one expects university students to be somewhat more tolerant, liberal and open-minded than the average person, and it must be annoying to them that their parents are so fixated on race, religion and "family background," whatever that is. Considering the divorce rate in the West, would that be the biological family or the last family you lived with? ;)

Westerners and their parents were both turned off by many previous sexual partners, whereas the Kurds put a higher value on education.

Thats the most surprising to me. Aren't westerners supposed to be more liberal about sexual experience?

This thread seemed to hit a raw nerve with SAM, are you fucking a retard by any chance?

This thread seemed to hit a raw nerve with SAM, are you fucking a retard by any chance?

No I always sound like a high pitched whine. :D

The Bell Curve. I don't have it with me, but it doesn't matter. The claims I've made, which is that intelligence is extremely highly influenced by genetics and that smart people much more often find themselves among smart people these days compared to the olden days, cannot be disputed.

Smart!?
There are many kinds of intelligence - let alone all the problems with IQ testing. The people at Microsoft and Google would tend to be smart about certain things, sure. Probably dumb at others
as tendencies.

In any case I don't see much culling going on. Social circles with some tendencies, sure.

This thread seemed to hit a raw nerve with SAM, are you fucking a retard by any chance?
SAM seemed to hit a raw nerve with Dr Lou Natic, are you rebuffed from fucking women by any chance?

SAM seemed to hit a raw nerve with Dr Lou Natic, are you rebuffed from fucking women by any chance?

Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively.

Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.:D

Aren't westerners supposed to be more liberal about sexual experience?

Mayhaps. You might be overlooking whatever portion of the population, because of their liberal sexual outlooks, view long-term relationships differently.

Remember, this is the age of trendy notions like the "bromance (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004328748_bromance07.html)". I see this sort of thing a lot. Compared to what seems to happen in long-term heterosexual relationships, a lot of men seem content these days with the occasional fling and maybe a hooker now and then.

Really, it's kind of a question in Seattle. I'm surprised it took them until this month to get around to it.

Think of it like unemployment numbers. During the Bush administration, we've heard a lot about the economy and unemployment, and one of the things that many will argue keeps the unemployment numbers down is an alleged dramatic increase in the number of people who have withdrawn from the job market.

Well, the same sort of thing may well be happening with marriage and long-term mating. Speed dating, online dating services, and any number of ridiculously overdramatized episodes blamed on feminism; add to all that rhetoric and politics about homosexuals, a rise in the visibility of polygamy in the country, and the cheapening of human relationships brought on by television shows like The Bachelor and Whose Wedding Is it Anyway? or whatever that one's called, and suddenly it doesn't seem so strange that people are looking at the "love market" and saying, "Fuck it."

Thus, when it comes to prior sexual partners, we have to stop and consider a couple of things.

• Who is answering the survey.
• What constitutes "many".

I thought I found the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/13/ST2008041301826.html) story, but maybe not. Anyway, it didn't help me place the various blocs of respondents.

My point being that that liberalization of sexual mores may be more dramatic outside the range of people who look forward to getting married.
______________________

See Also:

Bindley, Katherine. "Bromances aren't uncommon as guys delay marriage". Seattle Times. April 7, 2008. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004328748_bromance07.html

Vedantam, Shankar. "Parents and Children at Odds In Defining Mr. or Mrs. Right". Washington Post. April 14, 2008; page A07. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/13/ST2008041301826.html

Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively.

Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.:D
Ah, the rapier neo-compliment. I think you pierced his spleen. I do hope he notices.

Dr Lou makes his succinct points most abrasively.

Just think of him as someone who had the political correctness lobotomised out of him and you'll find him a most enjoyable read.:D

I prefer to think of him as someone who should be banned from this website.

SAM likes me because she hates kites.

I prefer to think of him as someone who should be banned from this website.

I usually focus on facts rather than crudity. If the man is making a point, I will keep him around. He can't help being socially challenged. Besides as leopold (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61335&page=4) said:

that you have a constitution of cast iron surrounded by 10 feet of titanium.
i seriously believe you can sit outside in the middle of a hurricane and knit sweaters. completely unflappable.



SAM likes me because she hates kites.

I have a fondness for f*cking retards.

I can tell, we aren't so sexually liberated in the west, we mostly fuck normals.

I can tell, we aren't so sexually liberated in the west, we mostly fuck normals.

/insert comment about having moved west.

So does Dr Lou subscribe to the Bell Curve?

where does evolution fit into this? LMFAO

where does evolution fit into this? LMFAO

I would say it fits in very well indeed. Spontaneity is clearly more advantageous to survival than thinking in a linear rut.

/insert comment about having moved west.
We eat maise in the west that is yellow all over.

than thinking in a linear rut.

Thats what i'm trying to tell you.

These days due to improvements in transportation like the highway system, cars, planes, etc., it's ever more the case that smart people find themselves working, socializing, and having families with smart people. Or maybe, these days with life so technologically smooth, more dumb people survive with the resources to remain attractive and breed - so the odds of breeding with someone dumb are greater, for everyone.

So we're in a time of expansion of the gene pool. The culling will come later, and the verdict on who's actually smart and dumb will be delivered then.

Or maybe, these days with life so technologically smooth, more dumb people survive with the resources to remain attractive and breed - so the odds of breeding with someone dumb are greater, for everyone.

So we're in a time of expansion of the gene pool. The culling will come later, and the verdict on who's actually smart and dumb will be delivered then.

There's a book about what you're talking about--dysgenics--by a psychologist named Richard Lynn. He says it's happening, despite what we hear about the Flynn effect. People continually degenerating because of the lack of influence of natural selection on keeping our gene pools strong and healthy. He says people are getting dumber, and are exhibiting less "conscientiousness," which he presumably ascribes to a degradation of the genome. I'm sure this is happening at least to some extent. But I'm not terribly concerned. Bigger and more troubling things are coming our way soon.

So yeah, I'd agree with you, people on the whole are losing genetic quality, due to technology, and are probably getting dumber. But that doesn't mean that certain subsets of the population aren't getting progressively smarter. The odds of any given person having breeding with someone dumb are better, but the odds of a brilliant person breeding with someone dumb are much smaller than they use to be.

So yeah, I'd agree with you, people on the whole are losing genetic quality, due to technology, and are probably getting dumber. You've got two conflicting trend possibilities here - one is that society is stratifying by genetic intelligence, the other is that society - all of it - is being suffused in genetic dumbnity.

My own personal take is that I have serious doubts about the conceptions of intelligence and genetic inheritance involved in any of this. As a rule of thumb, from an evolutionary point of view, it does a species good to build up a lot of genetic variety whenever it can. The evaluation of it is normally supplied by events. Possibly we are in a new era of cultural dominance over genetic evolution, and it will be permanent. But that's not how to bet, IMHO.

Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)

lol. fun stuff there.

society culls itself pretty readily in many ways. suicide is an interesting case, war, famine (as sam kinneson said, stop sending aid - send u-hauls instead... and have them MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS OHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! NOTHIGN GROWS IN THE DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - but we don't), etc. i think we do it all the time.

You've got two conflicting trend possibilities here - one is that society is stratifying by genetic intelligence, the other is that society - all of it - is being suffused in genetic dumbnity.

My own personal take is that I have serious doubts about the conceptions of intelligence and genetic inheritance involved in any of this. As a rule of thumb, from an evolutionary point of view, it does a species good to build up a lot of genetic variety whenever it can. The evaluation of it is normally supplied by events. Possibly we are in a new era of cultural dominance over genetic evolution, and it will be permanent. But that's not how to bet, IMHO.

The truth that general intelligence is transmitted genetically is not a controversial point in the science community anymore. Perhaps, there is a bit of contention on just how powerful the genetic controls are, but it's mostly accepted that they are very powerful and influential. Most identical twins studies I've read show a correlation value of about r^2 of .8 (I'm pretty sure) for the IQs of paired twins. It's not a fact to be discounted or trifled with. You still see stuff in popular magazines and Internet articles saying stuff like "New study suggests intelligence is inherited (Ooooh! Controversial!)" But in reality this stuff has been known for a long, long time already.

If you don't think intelligence is inherited, you might as well stop believing in heliocentrism or evolution. Plus, if you think about it logically, intelligence must have genetic controls. You don't need ID twin studies to tell you that. Trees aren't very intelligent compared to humans, are they? Can you nurture an oak tree to have the IQ of Einstein? No. There logically has to be intelligence genes. There's no escape.

Presumably there is a very useful statistically correct and universally applicable ratio this phenomenon? I hate to use the somewhat unscientific terminology used here but what the heck lets just call it the intelligent:dumb ratio. It looks something like this:
intelligent : dumb

As the human population rises so do the number of smart and dumb people exponetially. So far so dumb. What you would need to find out is whether there have been any increases either side of the ration in the 21st century compared to previous centuries.

For example in 1850 the smartness to dumbness ratio may have been 1:2
Since 1950, however that ratio may have changed to 1:36

Yikes the dummies ARE taking over the world but they are so stupid they will kill, sorry cull, themselves so everything will be ok for the smarties again soon.


Threads like this are rubbish.

Yikes the dummies ARE taking over the world but they are so stupid they will kill, sorry cull, themselves so everything will be ok for the smarties again soon.


Threads like this are rubbish.

Dumb is relative. :shrug:

My relatives are smart. It's just me who turned out dumb. :rolleyes:

So yeah, I'd agree with you, people on the whole are losing genetic quality, due to technology, and are probably getting dumber.

And who has access and the most dependence on technology: those with more money. In fact they tend to pay people to solve problems for them. And those who must make ends meet and problem solve in the lower rungs of society, and make their way through dangerous neighborhoods where they are relegated, etc.,

these people would be challenged, kept alert, cannot be so dependent on technology.

If we look at what rises to the top, take the Bush Administration, we see what can happen when you are surrounded by wealth and technology from the get go.

It does. Read The Bell Curve. These days due to improvements in transportation like the highway system, cars, planes, etc., it's ever more the case that smart people find themselves working, socializing, and having families with smart people. The opposite of this is also true. It's ever more the case that dumb people find themselves working, socializing, and having families with dumb people. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray call this social stratification. Intelligence is extremely highly influenced by genetics and therefore, since it's increasingly the case that dumb people are mating with dumb people and smart people are mating with smart people, it's likely that people are getting dumber and smarter than ever before. There will be a much starker difference between the elite and the downtrodden in the decades to come.

The debate about intelligence is a red herring.

If you look at the fossil record, which covers millions of years of human evolution, you will see numerous examples of earlier versions of human types, all with different degrees of prognathism, and all of which were destroyed or went 'extinct'. This physical trait, however, is still highly visible amongst some contemporary human populations, who occupy regions of the world rich in natural resources. Ergo, you have ample evolutionary and economic justification for your cull, without any need to refer to abstract ideas like intelligence.

What?

What?

My point is you are simply splitting hairs concerning abstract concepts like intelligence when a large proportion of humans are still prognathic, ie, their evolution was arrested, well over one million years ago.

All humans are the same species. Your misuse of a term designating certain physiological traits of the jaw is pathetic and probably racist.

All humans are even of the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

All humans are the same species. Your misuse of a term designating certain physiological traits of the jaw is pathetic and probably racist.

What has a social concept like race got to do with this?

I'm talking strictly biology, as is proven by this fossil record of human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

What has a social concept like race got to do with this?

I'm talking strictly biology, as is proven by this fossil record of human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Deepthought, all humans living today are a member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. That is strictly biology.

My point is you are simply splitting hairs concerning abstract concepts like intelligence when a large proportion of humans are still prognathic, ie, their evolution was arrested, well over one million years ago.

Intelligence matters a whole lot more in a person than whether he has a prognathism or supra orbital prominence (ape features).

All humans are even of the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

What's the point?

What's the point?

What do you mean ?

Deepthought, all humans living today are a member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. That is strictly biology.


Enmos,

That's strictly politics.

;)

Enmos,

That's strictly politics.

;)

And thats trolling the science forums. Unless you can substantiate your claim.

Unless you can substantiate your claim.

Who says that all living humans are members of the sub-species homo sapien sapien?

Err... the culture of latin speaking Europeans and their descendants in the New World?

You want me to endorse European colonial arrogance and its system of taxonomy?

I will accept that the term 'human' can be applied to all contemporary, bipedal lifeforms with quadruped ancestors sharing close genetic relations with primate groups. But not that we all share the same mental 'sentience'.

Homo sapien : Latin "wise man", "knowing man".

How many bipeds can that be applied to?

Hence, it's a matter of subjective opinion, and, therefore, political.

Good enough?

(PS: Why not get Enmos to prove it?)

Nope that did not do it. Try again. Prove to me that all humans are not homo sapiens sapiens

Who says that all living humans are members of the sub-species homo sapien sapien?

Err... the culture of latin speaking Europeans and their descendants in the New World?

You want me to endorse European colonial arrogance and its system of taxonomy?

I will accept that the term 'human' can be applied to all contemporary, bipedal lifeforms with quadruped ancestors sharing close genetic relations with primate groups. But not that we all share the same mental 'sentience'.

Homo sapien : Latin "wise man", "knowing man".

How many bipeds can that be applied to?

Hence, it's a matter of subjective opinion, and, therefore, political.

Good enough?

(PS: Why not get Enmos to prove it?)
Why not just come out an say what you believe instead of going through all these middlement arguments.

Why not just come out an say what you believe instead of going through all these middlement arguments.

Why don't you just come out an say he's a racist?

Why don't you just come out an say he's a racist?
That's an option. I took another one. In one short sentence.
Oh, yes...
I wanted an answer to that question.

Here are some more questions that you might also want to find answers to in regards to the OP just before you get into the genetics and intelligence debate.
What effect might a variable, such as nutrition, have on intelligence?
What effect might prolonged exposure to pollution have on intelligence?
What effect might equal access to education have on birth rates?
What effect might access to childhood vaccinations have on death rates?
What effect might conflicts have on populations?
What effect might migration have on populations?
What effect might the rising cost of wheat have on populations?
What effect might a flu pandemic have on populations?

Now then a few more questions:
How are you going to prove that today's poplulation is smarter or dummer than a previous generation's population?
If you can prove one way or the other what would it actually mean?
When you have decided what it actually means; what then do you propose to do about it? What might your aims be?
Do you want more smarties than dummies?
Or more dummies than smarties?
Or do you want to maintain the status quo?

whilst you are at it you might also ask:
What are smart people for?
What are dumb people for?
Where is the line that determines whether you are dumb or smart?

Oh and one final question for you. How are you measuring smartness again? IQ did you say?

Sniffy, I never said, nor was it ever my argument that environmental factors do not influence intelligence. I only said that the main influence is genetics which is consistent with science. Can you show that it is not?

Yes, IQ is what we use to indicate cognitive ability. Is it perfect? Does it tell you all about the different nuances in an individual's intelligence? No. Is it useful in predicting a person's ability to understand information, ability to train for jobs, and perform complex tasks? Immensely so. Why are people with high IQs so much better at these things than people with low IQs? Because they have higher general intelligence.

I remember talking about this with TimeTraveler a while ago. He was like "there is no such thing as general intelligence." How good one is at math has nothing to do with how good he is at, say, music or linguistics. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. All different facets of intelligence are, in fact, related. How good you are at math does have something to do with how good you are at linguistics. How good you are at music does have something to do with how good your memory is. If you're a prodigy at math, it doesn't mean you're going to be a prodigy at linguistics, but it does strongly suggest that you're going to be much better at linguistics than the average person. If you're a prodigy at music, it doesn't mean you're going to have a prodigal memory, but it does predict that you will have a better memory than most people. This is what science knows. This overlap in different cognitive abilities forms the basis of g. If you don't agree that there is such a thing as g, or that some people are generally smarter than others, then your opinion is in stark contrast to scientific fact.

There is such a thing as general intelligence. IQ predicts this correlation of cognitive abilities and that's why it is useful. That's why people with high IQs are more educated, have better health, have smarter spouses, have better jobs, earn more money, are more productive at their jobs, have lower incidences of incarceration, (the list goes on) than people with lower IQs. Coincidence? I doubt it.

. I only said that the main influence is genetics which is consistent with science.

Explain this:

During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.

If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.

Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin than other blood groups.

A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q2u612426625w110/
Abstract A similar pattern of spousal association for IQ scores and personality traits was found in two British samples from Oxford and Cambridge. There was no indirect evidence from either sample to suggest that convergence occurred during marriage. All observed assortative mating might well be due to initial assortment.

It's entirely possible that my wife is stupid, but I doubt it. It's possible that there are lots of IQs of 100 (population mean) who work at NASA, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc. I doubt it. All of my friends are pretty smart compared to the population mean. Coincidence? I doubt it. Everybody in my family is pretty smart. Coincidence?

Sam, I'm not making this a thing about race, although race does play a role. I will say this, however. There are whites who are intelligent and whites who are stupid. There are blacks who are intelligent and blacks who are stupid. That's about as far as I will go with that in this discussion.

Sam, how do your justify not being a hereditarian (am I wrong in assuming this about you?), in light of what homozygotic twin studies say?

Sam, I'm not making this a thing about race, although race does play a role. I will say this, however. There are whites who are intelligent and whites who are stupid. There are blacks who are intelligent and blacks who are stupid. That's about as far as I will go with that in this discussion.

Sam, how do your justify not being a hereditarian (am I wrong in assuming this about you?), in light of what homozygotic twin studies say?

1. Do twins share womb environments?
2. Are there substantial environmental differences between the twins?

All of my friends are pretty smart compared to the population mean. Coincidence? I doubt it. Everybody in my family is pretty smart. Coincidence?

Pretty smart compared to whom? What does an average IQ mean? Is the average IQ in NASA the same as the average IQ in the White House? What is the relative construct?

Sniffy, I never said, nor was it ever my argument that environmental factors do not influence intelligence. I only said that the main influence is genetics which is consistent with science. Can you show that it is not?

Yes, IQ is what we use to indicate cognitive ability. Is it perfect? Does it tell you all about the different nuances in an individual's intelligence? No. Is it useful in predicting a person's ability to understand information, ability to train for jobs, and perform complex tasks? Immensely so. Why are people with high IQs so much better at these things than people with low IQs? Because they have higher general intelligence.

I remember talking about this with TimeTraveler a while ago. He was like "there is no such thing as general intelligence." How good one is at math has nothing to do with how good he is at, say, music or linguistics. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. All different facets of intelligence are, in fact, related. How good you are at math does have something to do with how good you are at linguistics. How good you are at music does have something to do with how good your memory is. If you're a prodigy at math, it doesn't mean you're going to be a prodigy at linguistics, but it does strongly suggest that you're going to be much better at linguistics than the average person. If you're a prodigy at music, it doesn't mean you're going to have a prodigal memory, but it does predict that you will have a better memory than most people. This is what science knows. This overlap in different cognitive abilities forms the basis of g. If you don't agree that there is such a thing as g, or that some people are generally smarter than others, then your opinion is in stark contrast to scientific fact.

There is such a thing as general intelligence. IQ predicts this correlation of cognitive abilities and that's why it is useful. That's why people with high IQs are more educated, have better health, have smarter spouses, have better jobs, earn more money, are more productive at their jobs, have lower incidences of incarceration, (the list goes on) than people with lower IQs. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Sweeping generalisations? You got it!

My point is; so what? What is the point of this thread? To boast about how clever you and your family are and how you never have to mix with the stoopid people?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

And no you haven't given any proof that genetics is the main influence on intelligence. If it were so wouldn't the smart people be way out numbering the dummies by now and you seem to imply that they are not?

Sweeping generalisations? You got it!
What's wrong with making generalizations as long as you acknowledge that that's precisely what they are?

My point is; so what? What is the point of this thread? To boast about how clever you and your family are and how you never have to mix with the stoopid people?
You people are so boring with your attacks. To you and your ilk, it all comes back to me, me, me, and especially my evil conservative agenda. Why do you feel the need to focus on me and my disease? Why don't you just be an intellectual and focus on what's being argued?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

I wasn't tooting my horn numbnuts, I was making a point: have you never noticed how similar people cluster? Athletic people find athletic friends, intelligent people find intelligent friends, outcasts make outcast friends, and so on. "lol francois your so full of yourselflol"

Shut up.

And no you haven't given any proof that genetics is the main influence on intelligence. If it were so wouldn't the smart people be way out numbering the dummies by now and you seem to imply that they are not?

You can't absolutely prove anything. But there is overwhelming evidence that genetics is the prime influence on intelligence. The second sentence here is a total non-sequitur (also doesn't even make grammatical sense). I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself and see if you can figure out why it makes no sense before I explain it.

1. Do twins share womb environments?
2. Are there substantial environmental differences between the twins?

Pretty smart compared to whom? What does an average IQ mean? Is the average IQ in NASA the same as the average IQ in the White House? What is the relative construct?

Twins who have been reared separately have remarkably similar IQs; the correlation is almost the same as it is for twins who have been reared together. The difference in the correlation coefficients, which is presumably due to environmental influence, is very small. Remarkably, the older one gets, the less it seems is the influence of the environment. Heredity increases as one ages. Not what you'd expect if you were an environmentalist, as opposed to a hereditarian.

Do you know of any evidence which suggests that genetics is not a prime influence on intelligence, Sam?

Francois I didn't ask for absolute proof only some proof.

I have no idea what your politics are but thanks for letting me know about your evil conservative agenda. Also, thanks awfully for mentioning my people I didn't know you knew them.

Anyway. Now we are down to similar people clustering. Well yes some people who exhibit similar traits and finances gather together to socialise, SO WHAT? This is not something new as you implied in your OP. In fact it has happened for many a century but I'm not sure how much this has to do with intelligence or genetics and how much other factors are at work, such as economic systems....

So aside from a thread that has been posted to state the obvious. I can only assume that you are trying to make some other interesting point about social stratification and culling.

And in future please don't bring my numb nuts into the equation or you'll find yourself with yours forcefully removed.

Francois I didn't ask for absolute proof only some proof.
Why should I have to? This stuff is known by science. Would you similarly ask me for proof if I said that the Earth revolves around the sun? Look it up! This is not a controversial point. We've known this for decades!

So aside from a thread that has been posted to state the obvious. I can only assume that you are trying to make some other interesting point about social stratification and culling.
Whoa. So you agree with me? If you want to know my point, you need only read the last sentence in my first original post.

And in future please don't bring my numb nuts into the equation or you'll find yourself with yours forcefully removed.

Are you flirting with me?

Sam, will you quit editing my posts to make me look like a quack? I'm not doing anything out of line.

francois] Why should I have to? This stuff is known by science. Not even the correlation between IQ scores and intelligence is "known" by science to be interpretable in the manner you suggest, letalone your somewhat fanciful sociological projections.

I notice in your projections you do not even allow for recessive genetics, inbreeding, environmental lead exposure, diet, and so forth.

Just for one example, suppose you were faced with the following choice: you have a serious engineering problem to solve, and the people available to solve it are

1) the fifth generation of assortive mating among the offspring of the Kennedy and Bush families, all with fancy college degrees from elite Eastern institutions, who have been drawn to each other by their mutual intelligence as demonstrated by their above average IQ test scores (and of course their mutual proximity as teenagers at the same playgrounds for the rich), and

2) the fifth generation of assortive matings among the offspring of two families founded by a nomad Australian aborigine who shacked up with Greenland aborigine prostitute for a few years and left her with five kids and the Canadian welfare system, and a Kenyan small farmer who married a gullible Baptist missionary's daughter from the hills of West Virginia and produced seven children.

Of that second pair of families, founded by four people with well below average IQ scores, scientifically demonstrable to be genetically dumber than the Bushes and Kennedys, in this fifth generation now only a minority have gone to college at all, let alone expensive elite institutions of higher learning.

Which do you entrust with your problem ?

If, as you imply, that the first family continues to breed with intelligent people, and if the second family, as you imply, continues to breed with stupid people, I see no reason why we wouldn't expect the first group to contain a higher concentration of intelligence genes.

I'm still curious about this strange theory of yours and how it fits with your theories of culling and race.
Originally Posted by francois

So yeah, I'd agree with you, people on the whole are losing genetic quality, due to technology, and are probably getting dumber.

And who has access and the most dependence on technology: those with more money. In fact they tend to pay people to solve problems for them. And those who must make ends meet and problem solve in the lower rungs of society, and make their way through dangerous neighborhoods where they are relegated, etc.,

these people would be challenged, kept alert, cannot be so dependent on technology.

If we look at what rises to the top, take the Bush Administration, we see what can happen when you are surrounded by wealth and technology from the get go.

I wasn't talking about specifically technology like televisions and appliances. I was talking in a more general sense. Technology, which encompasses the ways of modern society in first world countries, which nearly everyone has access to. Things like welfare, vaccines, healthcare. Not just the elite benefit from those things. Nearly everybody gets vaccinated. Child death rates are very low these days even for the poor. In the early 1900s in America, one in six kids died before they became adolescents. Not anymore. As a result people, who have weaker constitutions are allowed to perpetuate their weaker constitutions. Got asthma? Here's an inhaler! Got allergies? Have some Clariton!

It's not a "strange theory." It's precisely what we should expect when there's no selective force weeding out deleterious genes.

deleterious genes.

What is a "deleterious" gene?

I wasn't talking about specifically technology like televisions and appliances. I was talking in a more general sense. Technology, which encompasses the ways of modern society in first world countries, which nearly everyone has access to. Things like welfare, vaccines, healthcare.
Everybody does not have access to the same health care, nutrition, protection even in the first world. It seeme like you were saying that technology is interfering with natural selection. But the fact is it is interfere more with the upper classes,BY FAR. Think about what a rich family can do to produce a child, for example.

It's not a "strange theory." It's precisely what we should expect when there's no selective force weeding out deleterious genes. It is a strange theory in the context where you are talking about culling and race. If you are right in your theory than generally white upper class people are vastly more cut off from the 'advantages' of natural selection that the poor in their own countries and certainly many citizens in the third world.

And since this is a not a new phenomenon, the reduced viability of the priviledged may already be easy to notice. Except to the extent that they control capital.

I don't think your race intelligence theories fit well with your culling theories. Nor does what I called a strange theory bode well for the people you identify with.

Twins who have been reared separately have remarkably similar IQs; the correlation is almost the same as it is for twins who have been reared together. The difference in the correlation coefficients, which is presumably due to environmental influence, is very small. Remarkably, the older one gets, the less it seems is the influence of the environment. Heredity increases as one ages. Not what you'd expect if you were an environmentalist, as opposed to a hereditarian.

Do you know of any evidence which suggests that genetics is not a prime influence on intelligence, Sam?

Why were the twins reared separately? Was one adopted? ...Because there are minimum standards for adoptive parents.

What is a "deleterious" gene?

A gene which causes one harm. The gene which causes Huntington's disease can be considered a deleterious gene. A gene which causes retardation is a deleterious gene.

Everybody does not have access to the same health care, nutrition, protection even in the first world. It seeme like you were saying that technology is interfering with natural selection. But the fact is it is interfere more with the upper classes,BY FAR. Think about what a rich family can do to produce a child, for example.

You are quite right about this. I would not argue that the upper class does not have better access to better health care than the other classes. My only point is that overall, in modern first world countries, there is less genetic sifting for everybody. You're putting arguments in my mouth.

It is a strange theory in the context where you are talking about culling and race. If you are right in your theory than generally white upper class people are vastly more cut off from the 'advantages' of natural selection that the poor in their own countries and certainly many citizens in the third world.
Again and again you guys are putting arguments in my mouth. Why do you do this? What's hard about taking my points at face value? I never made this about race. I think Sam was the first one here to mention it. Then once she said it, everybody was like "zomg, racist." I never even mentioned race.

I don't think your race intelligence theories fit well with your culling theories. Nor does what I called a strange theory bode well for the people you identify with.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I doubt that you do either.

A gene which causes one harm. The gene which causes Huntington's disease can be considered a deleterious gene. A gene which causes retardation is a deleterious gene.

Why do these genes persist if they are deleterious?

Why do these genes persist if they are deleterious?

Because while being harmful (that is, increases the organism's probability of dying), their effects aren't harmful enough to prevent the organism from passing them on to the next generation. The reason they're not harmful enough in the circumstances we're talking about (first world modern societies) is because of these lenient new environments and technologies. These cumulative errors build up and make the organisms weaker though.

If, as you imply, that the first family continues to breed with intelligent people, and if the second family, as you imply, continues to breed with stupid people, I see no reason why we wouldn't expect the first group to contain a higher concentration of intelligence genes. But I carefully did not say "intelligent people" and "stupid people". And the question was not about "intelligence genes", but about the ability to solve a difficult engineering problem.

So: the fifth generation of Kennedy/Bush inbeeding and privilege, or the fifth generation of the outbreeding described. Which would you guess could handle your problems, do your intellectual work, the better ?

But I carefully did not say "intelligent people" and "stupid people". And the question was not about "intelligence genes", but about the ability to solve a difficult engineering problem.
But it is about intelligence genes, since genes are what make people intelligent. If I want someone to be able to handle a complex engineering challenge, not just any doofus will do. He will need the proper genetics. Similar to any application. If you want someone to be able to train as a professional athlete he will need the proper genetics. Not any regular clutz will do.

So: the fifth generation of Kennedy/Bush inbeeding and privilege, or the fifth generation of the outbreeding described. Which would you guess could handle your problems, do your intellectual work, the better ?

I'm not sure man, there's no way to be sure, obviously, but my bet would be on the family which originally contained the more intelligent people, that's provided that somehow their family didn't get dumbed down with successive breeding and the other stupid family didn't get boosted with successive breeding.

Anyway, why don't you just come out and tell me what your point is? You said earlier it has something to do with recessive genes. Yes, I fully accept that there is such a thing as a recessive gene. You said that I didn't allow for it. I don't know how you got that. I don't know how that changes the fact that intelligence is inherited. I don't see how that changes the fact that smart people breed smart progeny. Therefore, I don't see how it obviates my initial premise. Do you?

Because while being harmful (that is, increases the organism's probability of dying), their effects aren't harmful enough to prevent the organism from passing them on to the next generation. The reason they're not harmful enough in the circumstances we're talking about (first world modern societies) is because of these lenient new environments and technologies. These cumulative errors build up and make the organisms weaker though.

So you don't think its possible that recessive genes confer any special advantages under some circumstances and hence they persist?

So you don't think its possible that recessive genes confer any special advantages under some circumstances and hence they persist?

I didn't say that and I don't think that.

You are quite right about this. I would not argue that the upper class does not have better access to better health care than the other classes. My only point is that overall, in modern first world countries, there is less genetic sifting for everybody. You're putting arguments in my mouth.
1) google and microsoft seemed like a kind of shorthand. Yes, everybody is getting sifted less, but some vastly less than others.

Again and again you guys are putting arguments in my mouth. Why do you do this? What's hard about taking my points at face value? I never made this about race. I think Sam was the first one here to mention it. Then once she said it, everybody was like "zomg, racist." I never even mentioned race. You based this in part on the Bell Curve, duh.

Much of the controversy concerned Chapters 13 and 14, in which the authors wrote about the enduring racial differences in intelligence and discuss implications of those differences

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I doubt that you do either. I was assuming you identified with the google/microsoft people. Let me know if this is wrong. I am suggesting that they, via wealth and priviledge, are vastly less vulnerable to those things that have been traditionally parts of natural selection. Even infertile ones can spend many thousands of dollars to get around this. This, according to what seemed like concerns in the OP, puts them - or their genetic heirs - at a disadvantage in the long run, especially if you are correct that they are now socializing more and more with each other, given that their genetic pool will be isolated from the 1st world poor and from the third world where natural selection is more prevelent. Thus you theory does not bode well for them in the long term.

I did understand what I meant. I can only hope, since I am quite sure are proud of where you sit on the relevent bell curve, that you can now understand my point.

1) google and microsoft seemed like a kind of shorthand. Yes, everybody is getting sifted less, but some vastly less than others.
How do you know that some classes are "vastly" more sifted than others in modern first world countries? Female intuition? How convincing!

You based this in part on the Bell Curve, duh.
Damn... do you know what a non-sequitur is? Just because I use an idea that is promoted in a book which talks about race does NOT mean I'm talking about race. Do you even think at ALL before you write?

I was assuming you identified with the google/microsoft people. Let me know if this is wrong. I am suggesting that they, via wealth and priviledge, are vastly less vulnerable to those things that have been traditionally parts of natural selection. Even infertile ones can spend many thousands of dollars to get around this. This, according to what seemed like concerns in the OP, puts them - or their genetic heirs - at a disadvantage in the long run, especially if you are correct that they are now socializing more and more with each other, given that their genetic pool will be isolated from the 1st world poor and from the third world where natural selection is more prevelent. Thus you theory does not bode well for them in the long term.
First, you don't know that the elite is significantly sifted less than the rest. You're just guessing. Second, I accept that due to dysgenics, everybody will be less healthy in general--if things keep going as they are--which they probably won't. That doesn't change the fact that some societal forces are still culling smarter people from the duller populations. That doesn't change the fact that these smarter people will have better jobs, more money and better lives than the rest of the population in a way that is more distinct than it is today. That was my entire point.

I did understand what I meant. I can only hope, since I am quite sure are proud of where you sit on the relevent bell curve, that you can now understand my point.

Again you idiots can't stop focusing on me. Learn to use spell checker, twit.

How do you know that some classes are "vastly" more sifted than others in modern first world countries? Female intuition? How convincing!
You asserted that technology, and I assume you included health care, was reducing the effects of natural selection. First world citizens are vastly better protected from factors we usually think of in natural selection. Ever lived in the 3rd world. I have. People just sit down to die when they get bitten by poisonous snakes where I was, even though the towns now have anti-venoms - primarily utilized by tourists. Let alone diseases that kill children and adults much more than in the 1st world. This is shown through life expectancy statistics and I find it odd you even disagree. Actually you didn’t. Which was clever, if disingenuous.

Damn... do you know what a non-sequitur is? Just because I use an idea that is promoted in a book which talks about race does NOT mean I'm talking about race. Do you even think at ALL before you write? Did you even think before you cited a book that came under great criticism for the way it used statistics around race, the same kinds of statistical analyses that were used for all of their conclusions? Did you ever check out any of the vast literature pointing out the problems with The Bell Curve. Or did you think you could simply cite from memory, gosh, I think it said something like.....

Another poster joins the debate and is racist and instead of challenging him, you decide to make sure I am not a hypocrite in the way I challenged him. Sorry if I assumed you draw, like he drew, racial conclusions following the logic in the OP and later posts and The Bell Curve. You certainly seem less concerned about racism than what appeared to you to be inconsistancy. But I am glad to hear you do not draw race based intelligence conclusions like the morons who wrote that book.

First, you don't know that the elite is significantly sifted less than the rest. You're just guessing. Second, I accept that due to dysgenics, everybody will be less healthy in general--if things keep going as they are--which they probably won't. That doesn't change the fact that some societal forces are still culling smarter people from the duller populations. That doesn't change the fact that these smarter people will have better jobs, more money and better lives than the rest of the population in a way that is more distinct than it is today. That was my entire point.

Yeah, I got that. Using idiotic notions of what intelligence is, basing your conclusions on a book that is very naïve about considering a variety of factors and the nature of intelligence testing, you have join the ranks of those who think that those with merit rise to the top.

Again you idiots can't stop focusing on me. Learn to use spell checker, twit.

In this post toward the end, I focused on you. Before that I focused on your ideas, implicit or directly stated. You’re the asshole who lowered it to ad homs. Been hanging out too much in McDonald's I guess.

I can see I got you a bit riled up because I snapped at you in my previous post. I think I owe you an apology. Sorry. That's not really me. I was annoyed because you were the third or fourth person who failed to comprehend my argument and who kept focusing on me instead of my arguments. It was a case of breaking the camel's back, so sorry. I hope we can carry on civilly.

You asserted that technology, and I assume you included health care, was reducing the effects of natural selection. First world citizens are vastly better protected from factors we usually think of in natural selection. Ever lived in the 3rd world. I have. People just sit down to die when they get bitten by poisonous snakes where I was, even though the towns now have anti-venoms - primarily utilized by tourists. Let alone diseases that kill children and adults much more than in the 1st world. This is shown through life expectancy statistics and I find it odd you even disagree. Actually you didn’t. Which was clever, if disingenuous.
Okay, before I respond to this, I'll let you in on something: this dysgenics stuff we've been talking about really has nothing to do with the main argument at hand. I've just been going along with it so we could talk about something and hopefully quickly get back to the main point. I guess that didn't happen.

Your argument has been this: The elite are at a disadvantage in the long run since they are more subject to dysgenic influences and therefore your theory doesn't bode well for the elite. Which actually doesn't even contradict my argument. If the dysgenic influences for the elite are so much greater than they are for the rest, as you claim they are, then they should get dumb again, and, equalize with the rest of the population.

You again made it seem like I was arguing something I never was. Please, please, please, know what it is I am arguing before you argue against it. That's called a strawman. You implied that I was arguing that the influence of natural selection in third world countries isn't great compared to those in modern first world countries. In fact, I never argued that. The only thing I explicitly said about this dysgenics stuff is this: In modern first world countries, genetic sifting is less for everyone." and in response to your argument: "You don't know that the elite in modern first world countries are vastly less sifted than the rest of the population in first world countries. You're just guessing." That's all I said.

Did you even think before you cited a book that came under great criticism for the way it used statistics around race, the same kinds of statistical analyses that were used for all of their conclusions? Did you ever check out any of the vast literature pointing out the problems with The Bell Curve. Or did you think you could simply cite from memory, gosh, I think it said something like.....
You mean criticisms from flakes like Gould? What, precisely, are the problems with The Bell Curve?

No, don't answer that. Forget The Bell Curve. There are only two ideas I used from my argument which I could have gotten from anywhere. If The Bell Curve hadn't been written by Herrnstein and Murray, it would have been written by someone else. The ideas are.

1. Like people cluster. Especially because of the improved transport these days smart people tend to cluster more than they ever could before.
2. Intelligence is powerfully inherited.

If these ideas are true, then the ramifications have to be large. If you pull the brightest minds out of populations to work on NASA, CERN and all kinds of high brain powered jobs, then you're going to have brain drain in other places.

There is nothing wrong with either of these two premises. Intelligence is known to be powerfully inherited. That is known by science. Smart people cluster. That also cannot reasonably be disputed. Do you think it doesn't happen? Why would a genius want to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart when he could have an incredible job at Google where he's paid $200,000 per year, works at the best company to work for in the world and do stuff that's exciting? I have no idea why they would do that. They probably would not, and that's why idiots don't work at Google and geniuses don't work at McDonald's.

Another poster joins the debate and is racist and instead of challenging him, you decide to make sure I am not a hypocrite in the way I challenged him. Sorry if I assumed you draw, like he drew, racial conclusions following the logic in the OP and later posts and The Bell Curve. You certainly seem less concerned about racism than what appeared to you to be inconsistancy. But I am glad to hear you do not draw race based intelligence conclusions like the morons who wrote that book.
I didn't see him say anything racist. And actually I did challenge him. Bah.

Yeah, I got that. Using idiotic notions of what intelligence is, basing your conclusions on a book that is very naïve about considering a variety of factors and the nature of intelligence testing, you have join the ranks of those who think that those with merit rise to the top.
Precisely, what's idiotic about the notions of intelligence the book talks about? Do you seriously doubt that in America those with merit aren't the ones that rise? I'll admit there are a lot of crooks (intelligent crooks, mind you) who rise to the top, but there are also lots of just plain intelligent people who do too. Either way, it's usually the intelligent people. There are books and studies which show a reliable trend that IQ correlates powerfully with wealth. Should we expect it not to be that way? Should we expect retards to be writing code for software companies, making millions of dollars a year? That makes sense. Smarter people have a higher economic value. They don't rise to the top arbitrarily. They rise to the top because they're cognizant about how the world works, they are able to make realistic models and predict what will work and what will not, they are more productive at their jobs, and so its worth it for them to be paid more by their employers. That's what's going on, that's precisely what we should expect, and that's what the studies show.

In this post toward the end, I focused on you. Before that I focused on your ideas, implicit or directly stated. You’re the asshole who lowered it to ad homs. Been hanging out too much in McDonald's I guess.

McDonald's is gross. I'd rather eat dogshit which had been eaten by another dog and then been regurgitated, and then been eaten by another dog and then got shat out. That regurgitated and vomited out dogshit is pretty damn good.

This debate sounds like it is suggesting that social Darwinism is just around the corner, with the poor and downtrodden being that way because of their own innate biological inferiority.

Then again, what is the definition of 'success' we're using here? It can't be earning money and gaining entrance into the more exclusive echelons of society, as I know that the smartest people are not the ones who earn the most, in general. Earning money is relatively easy, it just requires taking on financial risks, so the people who earn the most are, in my experience, men of merely sufficient intellect for the field they are in who are relatively risk-tolerant. The other "high earning" group are the progeny of those risk-seekers, and (in my experience) they tend to be less intelligent than their parents, but their inherited wealth makes it easy for them to earn large sums of money.

The smartest people I know tend to gravitate to fields where intellectual or artistic challenges abound: philosophy, science, play writing, game theory, or academic positions in general. Some go into law and medicine, but neither of those tends to lead to the mega-fortunes the way that, say, operating a hedge fund or private equity firm does.

I saw that "engineers" were mentioned, but those could hardly be the paragons of "success" it seems to me. Engineering tends to be a middle path, where you can earn decent amounts on money, and face interesting intellectual challenges. But the money is hardly in the top tier of what's possible and what intellectual challenges usually arise as a result of what the job demands (rather than self-selected, as would be the case for many intellectuals in other areas), and so may or may not be of any particular interest to the engineer.

If "success" is reproductive success, then smart people seem unsuccessful to me. I know many smart people who are *so* smart that they want to limit the size of their family or, even, do not want kids t all. The unfortunate truth is that, sublime as it may be to be a parent, kids do not lead to greater personal happiness. Even if your kid is terrific and grows into a well-adjusted and loving adult, there is a rocky and expensive path from cradle to living-on-his/her-own. Meanwhile, some kids grow up to be complete pains in the ass. All of which leads us, in our utilitarian age, to want to limit the number of children we have.

Personally, I see no evidence of the intellectual stratification of the western world at present. I see wealthy parents with some very stupid children (for an obvious and well known example, see Paris Hilton) and I know many people who, despite the difficulty, rose from middle class and lower class backgrounds to wealth and the upper classes.

There are many factors that lead to people getting married and having children. Selection based on sexual characteristics, like physical attractiveness, seems to be at least as important as that based on intelligence, and since attractiveness is controlled by genes, am I to infer that people in certain classes will be getting prettier over time?

The Bell Curve is antiquated and wrong. This argument was had over a decade ago & smarter people than I adequately put it to rest and rightly so. Science should not be so easily distorted, when it is, peers must stand up and say 'it aint so'.

A quick dissection of the issue--

First off - who is the author? What are his credentials, where did he study? Who, if anyone is paying for the research and publishing?
Next - Media involvement....to what extent is it involved and to which audience. Why is there a 'push'?
Last - peer review. What do people 'in the know' think?

These were the things I asked myself after reading this book and very quickly got to the crux of the matter so I could see the book in the context in which the author intended. The guy is a Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, is involved with the Bradley Foundation and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Find out what these people stand for, then the book takes on a new light. Reading a book cover to cover should not mean you're done with it - if anything, you've only just heard half the story.

What possibly can one hope to learn from a book when it's author is on record as saying ""For many people, there is nothing they can learn that will repay the cost of teaching.":shrug:

I'm sorry I brought up The Bell Curve. I don't know what's wrong with The Bell Curve; you guys insist there is something wrong with it, yet nobody explains precisely what its problems are. They just give me links to critics who purportedly "refuted" the book. Then other critics refute the refuters' refutations and it goes back and forth and it becomes clear that people will find ways to justify exactly what they want to believe. So forget The Bell Curve. What's wrong with my initial two premises?

Bell Curve

Nope that did not do it. Try again. Prove to me that all humans are not homo sapiens sapiens


I'd love to.

But first - just so that we are on the same page to begin with - can you tell me at what point on the chart below homo sapiens sapiens begin?

(Surely you can, since you obviously have the knowledge to label all humanity so).

The skulls are labeled for your convenience (skull A is a chimpanzee skull, I believe - for reference).


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

At the point where they could not reproduce with the previous one?

At the point where they could not reproduce with the previous one?


All the branches of the homo genus below could conceivably have reproduced with homo sapien sapien.
# †Homo erectus (Upright Man)
# †Homo floresiensis (Flores Man; discovered 2003. Species status remains under debate.)
# †Homo antecessor (Predecessor Man)
# †Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
# †Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
# †Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
# †Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
# †Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)

Perhaps other, earlier branches too.

Homo sapien sapien is an arbitrary designation, created by an 18th century European (Linnaeus) and open to modification.

All the branches of the homo genus below could conceivably have reproduced with homo sapien sapien.


Perhaps other branches too.

You are on very thin ice there. Most biologists would say that they probably could not have produced vertile offspring.
Rather like donkeys and horses can reproduce but cannot produce vertile offspring.

You are on very thin ice there. Most biologists would say that they probably could not have produced vertile offspring.
Rather like donkeys and horses can reproduce but cannot produce vertile offspring.

Enmos,

Linnaeus' system of taxonomy was based upon shared physical characteristics, not ability to reproduce. Hence, for S.A.M to claim that reproducibility determines these classifications is just absurd.

Furthermore, how do you explain the physical similitude between certain human populations alive today and that of homo neanderthalis? Denser bones, stronger bodies, prognathism, but not, alas, large craniums.

Were Neanderthals our enemies or lovers? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/31/scineanderthal131.xml)

Maybe you guys could take this discussion about race elsewhere? This thread isn't about race.

Maybe you guys could take this discussion about race elsewhere? This thread isn't about race.

It seems to me that beautiful people have been mating with other beautiful people, and ugly people with other ugly people, for a while in human history, and yet I see no evidence of certain groups becoming more and more beautiful (or increasingly ugly) over the generations.

More over, even if smart people tend to mate with other smart people, many smart and successful men go out of their way to mate with beautiful women (smart or not). High intellect is just as likely to be one factor amongst many (including beauty, kindness, wealth, degrees of extroversion, etc.) in the decision to get married, making me wonder whether the selection pressure on that trait is as great as you suggest.

As for the "stark[] difference between the elite and the downtrodden" you foresee in the future, the term "downtrodden" suggests "poor" rather than intellectually inferior, and I still deny that higher intellect leads to higher salary in the way that suggests. Intelligence opens up more career options that idiocy does, but the truly intelligent generally look for something more than just salary in picking a position.

Enmos,

Linnaeus' system of taxonomy was based upon shared physical characteristics, not ability to reproduce. Hence, for S.A.M to claim that reproducibility determines these classifications is just absurd.

Furthermore, how do you explain the physical similitude between certain human populations alive today and that of homo neanderthalis? Denser bones, stronger bodies, prognathism, but not, alas, large craniums.

Were Neanderthals our enemies or lovers? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/31/scineanderthal131.xml)

Wait.. you claimed that all of them could have reproduced with Homo sapiens sapiens. :bugeye:

Good stuff to think about Pandaemoni. As always your posts are thoughtful and well put. I'll be back with a response to that later.

Homo sapien sapien is an arbitrary designation, created by an 18th century European (Linnaeus) and open to modification. It's not at all arbitrary, it has always been open to modification (such as adding the subspecies "sapiens" long after Linneaus was dead), and it's kept because it's useful and it works and it fits the facts.