EPTstupid people outbreed smart people - Page 3
| Blogs > t_co |
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 09 2008 15:02 Hippopotamus wrote: IQ is standardized so that 100 is always the average. Also, regression toward the mean destroys any argument you may have had. Since IQ isn't entirely genetically determined, IQ scores tend to regress toward the mean. Parents with IQs below the mean tend to have children who are smarter and parents with IQs above the mean tend to have children who are dumber. Ironically, the reverse of your thesis is just as true: the more 'dumb' people breed, the higher the average IQ (at least on the very short term). Ummmmmmmm, I foresee that you will get a plenty of children! You realize that even though really intelligent people breed children who are more stupid than they themselves are the children are still smarter than the average. Regression just means that no matter were you start you will always work towards a middle point, unless you make alterations in the selection process of course and that is exactly what happens here. The way to breed smart persons is to always take the smartest kids and breed them over and over, even though most of their children will be dumber than themselves a few of them will be even smarter so just take those again and breed and after a while all the "dumb" genes have been weeded out and then they will get children who are roughly as smart as themselves, thats how you create a new race of a species, by selecting the correct parents over and over until the genetic materials gets pure enough. Of course we have no way to really determine how smart a person is so that would not be possible. IQ just have a strong correlation with intelligence, they are not the same thing and if we breed people after that we would get persons who are extremely dumb but are very good at doing the tests. | ||
|
Sky
Jordan812 Posts
Everyday I'm finding out more and more stories that completely go against my pessimistic viewpoints ~4-5 years ago, back in high school. It makes me happy that I was wrong about these things, and understanding that I was quite naive [I still am naive]. Than again, I did believe that the opposite of pro- was con in the funny test answer thread. Merbe I'mre just one of them retards you's guys keep speaking 'bert. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On November 09 2008 11:09 Nytefish wrote: This is like a newbie calling anyone higher than C rank "pro". They can't tell the difference between a pro-gamer and C rank player because they are so much worse than both of them. Basically, you haven't met enough "smart" people. No, it really isn't. It's more like saying just about anyone could make B or A- if they dedicated their life to StarCraft, but only a few naturally talented, rare people will ever be able to compete effectively in the pro-scene, and likewise, only a few, really dimwitted and probably mentally disabled people will never achieve a rank higher than C (presuming all people considered are able bodied and not amputated or something). Please try to think more carefully when responding to my posts in the future. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 09 2008 21:50 SkY wrote: The only major player in whether or not they take that extra step to learn, is the culture or peers around them. Statistically it is roughly 50/50, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Heritability-from-twin-correlations1.jpg) From this you can see that general intelligence got roughly 50% heritage correlation. MZ and DZ are mono/di zygote and the difference between them times 2 is roughly the correlation between heritage and that trait. | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 09 2008 23:53 KaasZerg wrote: The double egg twins are siblings so they share a lot of genetic material. A better study would have been between children adopted from different biological parents at an early age in the same adoption family so the genetics are truly random. I would expect expect bigger differences if there was no genetical relationship at all except random occurance. I go about reading the wiki now. Which is why I said twice the difference, since siblings share exactly 50% and real twins 100%. Sure in small cases this would not work, but once you get up to statistically significant figures you can well do such approximations. | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
On November 09 2008 22:54 Chef wrote: No, it really isn't. It's more like saying just about anyone could make B or A- if they dedicated their life to StarCraft, but only a few naturally talented, rare people will ever be able to compete effectively in the pro-scene, and likewise, only a few, really dimwitted and probably mentally disabled people will never achieve a rank higher than C (presuming all people considered are able bodied and not amputated or something). Please try to think more carefully when responding to my posts in the future. If everyone dedicated their life to starcraft, I don't see why you wouldn't get different people hitting a wall at every rank. Becoming a pro doesn't suddenly place you into a magical category far above the semi-pros and amateurs. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 10 2008 00:34 Chef wrote: Well you're wrong lol. So you believe that in the case of 90% of the population there is no genetic difference whatsoever in terms of intelligence? | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
And it's going to be a useless discussion because everyone's got a different idea of intelligence. | ||
|
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
Since you have to be smarter than the wast majority of people to be considered smart, kind of means that stupid people always will outbreed smart. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 10 2008 00:41 Epicfailguy wrote: Well whether or not a guy is smart, is determined by others. Since you have to be smarter than the wast majority of people to be considered smart, kind of means that stupid people always will outbreed smart. Well, what they mean is that dumb person on average have more kids than smart persons, not that dumb persons outbreed smart persons since they are a hundred times as many. | ||
|
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
I should read the entire topic better next time :-) | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
And in the past people had big families too work on the farm and shit and some families that value tradition will probably stay like that for a long ass time. Not necessarily just getting knocked up early and repeatedly through stupidity. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On November 09 2008 20:47 Klockan3 wrote: Ummmmmmmm, I foresee that you will get a plenty of children! You realize that even though really intelligent people breed children who are more stupid than they themselves are the children are still smarter than the average. Regression just means that no matter were you start you will always work towards a middle point, unless you make alterations in the selection process of course and that is exactly what happens here. The way to breed smart persons is to always take the smartest kids and breed them over and over, even though most of their children will be dumber than themselves a few of them will be even smarter so just take those again and breed and after a while all the "dumb" genes have been weeded out and then they will get children who are roughly as smart as themselves, thats how you create a new race of a species, by selecting the correct parents over and over until the genetic materials gets pure enough. Of course we have no way to really determine how smart a person is so that would not be possible. IQ just have a strong correlation with intelligence, they are not the same thing and if we breed people after that we would get persons who are extremely dumb but are very good at doing the tests. Well I certainly will have plenty of children, but my point isn't against eugenics. Perhaps eugenics is on your mind, but my reply is purely to the OP, an observation that the mass breeding of 'stupid' people doesn't actually lower the average intelligence, let alone IQ which is normalized to always be 100. There's absolutely no need for a statistical argument against the eugenics you propose in your post since it's just morally wrong. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
What is a species primary objective? Is it not survival? Or is it not only survival but dominance? There are many among us that say things would be better if humans didn't exist. There would be more harmony on the planet. However, this goes against the only thing that humans have always strive for. Here is an interesting article about how humans have "forgotten" their past. http://www.awok.org/great-forgetting/ (I don't agree with the conclusion of the article, only its development and thought process.) My question to all of you: we have survived for millions of years by being "stupid", having no technology, and living living like animals. For the last few thousand years, when we became "smart", and developed quantitative disciplines, we are in danger of killing ourselves. I know this isn't the topic of the OP, but only what it implies. What I'm saying is we need to think about what "smart" really is, and not limit ourselves to something called "IQ". | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 10 2008 10:08 Hippopotamus wrote: but my reply is purely to the OP, an observation that the mass breeding of 'stupid' people doesn't actually lower the average intelligence That was what I responded to though, I have no arguments for/against eugenics, I just say that it is possible. And saying that it do not lower the IQ is just semantic bullshit, you know very well what he means. If they have to raise the mean then the IQ have gotten higher, if they have to lower the mean then the IQ have gotten lower. IQ is also just an arbitrary way to measure intelligence, and the letters "IQ"is often used in place of intelligence in many discussions which is what I think the OP did. On November 10 2008 12:07 fight_or_flight wrote: Also, I believe that most people are equally intelligent. Whether someone learns or not is more dependent on their attitude than brain power from my experience. I believe that the vast majority of people have the ability to learn calculus and two or three languages, I think it generally depends on upbringing and attitude as opposed to biological traits. I would say that there is quite a huge difference between peoples ability to understand basic concepts such as calculus, at least among those who study the hard sciences at university level and they are all motivated to try to learn it or they would not study it. | ||
| ||
