|
Poll: Do stupid people breeding lower average IQ?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): I have 5 kids... who y'all callin dumb?
They have too many kids at earlier ages ==> society gets dumber. Do you agree?
Also, an interesting sidenote is that since the average democrat voter (more highly educated) has about .3 less children per generation than the average republican voter, this country will become more and more republican as time wears on.
And, hostility to abortion and same-sex marriage is also correlated with having more children. Hence these issues may become resolved two or three generations down the road.
 
|
No, since you're implying all kids that are raised in a republican family will become republican, and same thing with democraft.
Have you factored in Immigration? Most immigrants to US tend to be democrats.
|
On November 09 2008 08:50 XCetron wrote:
No, since you're implying all kids that are raised in a republican family will become republican, and same thing with democraft.
Have you factored in Immigration? Most immigrants to US tend to be democrats.
But it is true that family will have heavy influence on the political thoughts of a child.
|
I can't remember where I saw it, but I recently read about a recent study that demonstrated how education level was inversely associated with how many children couples had.
Then again, there are alot more factors than parents. Kids these days have access to a wealth of information through the internet, TV, etc, while working parents are less and less at the center of their upbringing.
|
Chinese is the most spoken language in the world thanks to the massive population size. While there are many different factors that contribute to dumbing down, I agree if you put it at the reproductive level... And if you throw in immigration, education, etc... still yes.
|
On November 09 2008 08:50 XCetron wrote:
No, since you're implying all kids that are raised in a republican family will become republican, and same thing with democraft.
Have you factored in Immigration? Most immigrants to US tend to be democrats.
Agreed.
I had to laugh that you typed 'democraft', though. I don't know if that was intentionally snuck in there, or you've just typed 'starcraft' a few too many times, haha.
|
Question: Did the OP just finish watching Idiocracy when he posted this? If so, he totally didn't get the message at all.
Second, being democrat, republican, or how smart you are has nothing to do with how many kids you have. It's about how much wealth you have. The more wealth you have, the higher the opportunity cost it is to raise a child.
Example: Say some woman makes $1000 a month. She then goes on maternity leave and can't work for 9 of months. She loses $9000.
Now take a housewife. While the housewife is pregnant, she loses $0 since she brings in no income. The cost of raising a child for the housewife is a lot less than the other one. Both have to deal with the cost of providing for the child, but the working woman also has to deal with losses in wages.
Side note, don't you think you should check for your grammar when you're posting about how stupid other people are?
|
they do but this has nothing to do with politics
|
This sentence should be written
"Does stupid people's breeding lower IQ?"
So I'll vote ... no?
|
People hopefully will vote according to their desires/needs. It doesn't make them stupid to vote in a way that will benefit them most.
That said, there are lots of ways to make people vote in ways that do not benefit them, IE CNN. I don't know if that makes them particularly stupid or not.
There's average intelligence people, which I'd say make up 95% or so of the population. Their votes are determined by what they see in the media and what their friends tell them. The remaining 5% are either excessively dumb, and need no consideration, or extremely smart, and will hopefully guide the masses of average intelligence people. I'd say the OP of this thread is either average, or excessively dumb.
|
|
|
On November 09 2008 09:19 Chef wrote:
There's average intelligence people, which I'd say make up 95% or so of the population. Their votes are determined by what they see in the media and what their friends tell them. The remaining 5% are either excessively dumb, and need no consideration, or extremely smart, and will hopefully guide the masses of average intelligence people. I'd say the OP of this thread is either average, or excessively dumb.
That's a very odd definition of average. Also it's absurd to say people are either average, really dumb, or really smart. There's no sensible way to describe a sudden gap between "normal person" and "smart person", you get everything in between. Although, since we're on the topic of baseless assumptions, relatively speaking I'd say you're acting excessively dumb.
|
I agree with both your points. Men and women who can barely work a cashregister or a forklift have more children then the university alumni. The uneducated tier is having babies at 17 18. Extrapolate 100 years---->Oh sh....!
The avarage IQ remains the same as it is an index. Scores get adjusted and questions dumbed down or spiced up. People have become better at IQ tests due to better education and change in the nature of the jobmarket in the last few decenia.
|
IQ is normalized so i dont think it has any effect
|
On November 09 2008 09:28 Nytefish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 09:19 Chef wrote:
There's average intelligence people, which I'd say make up 95% or so of the population. Their votes are determined by what they see in the media and what their friends tell them. The remaining 5% are either excessively dumb, and need no consideration, or extremely smart, and will hopefully guide the masses of average intelligence people. I'd say the OP of this thread is either average, or excessively dumb. That's a very odd definition of average. Also it's absurd to say people are either average, really dumb, or really smart. There's no sensible way to describe a sudden gap between "normal person" and "smart person", you get everything in between. Although, since we're on the topic of baseless assumptions, relatively speaking I'd say you're acting excessively dumb.
Most people I meet everyday have about the same capacity for achievement. Once in awhile I'll meet someone really mindbogglingly smart that obviously just has the genetics to be better than everyone else. Likewise, once in awhile I'll walk past the special education classes.
The difference between people of what I've called average intelligence is negligible and meaningless. However, in my own subjective opinion, this average level of intelligence is not good enough to ensure a prosperous future for humanity, and you definitely belong to it.
|
This is all cos of that korn video...
|
Since IQ is normalized around the number 100, the average will always stay at 100.
Edit: geo beat me to it.
|
stupid people drink alot with other stupid people
leads to unsafe behavior becaue they are stupid nad dont hink about consequences
smart people stay in their labs curing diseases and stuff, doesnt really give them much opportunity for meeting hot chicks that always have their legs open to guys
|
On November 09 2008 09:53 stenole wrote:
Since IQ is normalized around the number 100, the average will always stay at 100.
Edit: geo beat me to it.
You can't say you didn't get his point though  What 100 IQ means is the thing he's clearly talking about (even if he can't properly describe it himself).
|
United States24745 Posts
American society tends to protect people who are born when they shouldn't have been, rather than grind them into the dirt. I'd guess this promotes a system where the dumb people who reproduce when they shouldn't bring down the average human intelligence.
|
I think most "stupid" people aren't so much stupid as they are average and lacking the time, opportunity, and training it takes to become "smart." Their having children won't damage the intelligence of the world. But it will increase demand for limited resources.
|
it's not people that are stupid. it's society that is stupid. when you change society, you change people.
|
I read a study recently which concluded that the average brain size had decreased ca 10 % (don't quote me on this number) the last 1000 years.
So yeah, it does.
|
On November 09 2008 10:49 KlaCkoN wrote:
I read a study recently which concluded that the average brain size had decreased ca 10 % (don't quote me on this number) the last 1000 years.
So yeah, it does.
yeah because you know people were really smart 1000 years ago in the DARK AGES
|
On November 09 2008 09:48 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 09:28 Nytefish wrote:On November 09 2008 09:19 Chef wrote:
There's average intelligence people, which I'd say make up 95% or so of the population. Their votes are determined by what they see in the media and what their friends tell them. The remaining 5% are either excessively dumb, and need no consideration, or extremely smart, and will hopefully guide the masses of average intelligence people. I'd say the OP of this thread is either average, or excessively dumb. That's a very odd definition of average. Also it's absurd to say people are either average, really dumb, or really smart. There's no sensible way to describe a sudden gap between "normal person" and "smart person", you get everything in between. Although, since we're on the topic of baseless assumptions, relatively speaking I'd say you're acting excessively dumb. Most people I meet everyday have about the same capacity for achievement. Once in awhile I'll meet someone really mindbogglingly smart that obviously just has the genetics to be better than everyone else. Likewise, once in awhile I'll walk past the special education classes.
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.
|
On November 09 2008 08:49 t_co wrote:
And, hostility to abortion and same-sex marriage is also correlated with having more children. Hence these issues may become resolved two or three generations down the road.
This is so ridiculous that it needs only to be stated, to be refuted.
|
On November 09 2008 09:10 soudo wrote:
Question: Did the OP just finish watching Idiocracy when he posted this? If so, he totally didn't get the message at all.
Second, being democrat, republican, or how smart you are has nothing to do with how many kids you have. It's about how much wealth you have. The more wealth you have, the higher the opportunity cost it is to raise a child.
Example: Say some woman makes $1000 a month. She then goes on maternity leave and can't work for 9 of months. She loses $9000.
Now take a housewife. While the housewife is pregnant, she loses $0 since she brings in no income. The cost of raising a child for the housewife is a lot less than the other one. Both have to deal with the cost of providing for the child, but the working woman also has to deal with losses in wages.
Side note, don't you think you should check for your grammar when you're posting about how stupid other people are?
Lol? Making babies aint about wealth man. In fact fucking is one of the few things that everyone can do no matter how poor or how rich you are. There are increased amount of children amongst the lower class for quite a few reasons but the obvious ones are 1) Theres more poor people than rich people 2) People like to have sex 3) Lower class people are less educated or dont care about contraception.
Plenty of destitute crack whores give birth every day man.
|
Oh no they are stupid all right. In the Netherlands everybody gets educated to death. About 16% score 85 or lower on IQ. If I remember correctly 80 is borderline retarded and 15 is the standard deviation. My hometown has a higher procentage of fucktards than avarage though. There is a polytech university wich attracts students from outside the townto balance it out. I must admit I have a pessimistic take on avarage intelligence.
You will be amazed how many women of 80 IQ or lower get pregnant and choose to keep the baby. They don't know anything else to do with their live. Yeah later Social workers, adoption or other drama.
|
On November 09 2008 09:10 soudo wrote:
Question: Did the OP just finish watching Idiocracy when he posted this? If so, he totally didn't get the message at all.
Second, being democrat, republican, or how smart you are has nothing to do with how many kids you have. It's about how much wealth you have. The more wealth you have, the higher the opportunity cost it is to raise a child.
Example: Say some woman makes $1000 a month. She then goes on maternity leave and can't work for 9 of months. She loses $9000.
Now take a housewife. While the housewife is pregnant, she loses $0 since she brings in no income. The cost of raising a child for the housewife is a lot less than the other one. Both have to deal with the cost of providing for the child, but the working woman also has to deal with losses in wages.
Side note, don't you think you should check for your grammar when you're posting about how stupid other people are?
people ahve children regardless of how much money they have, its totally unrelated. This is why people are stupid they dont think.. So you think that a rich house wife will have like 9 kids because she doesnt lose money on it? lol
|
United States3824 Posts
On November 09 2008 08:50 XCetron wrote:
No, since you're implying all kids that are raised in a republican family will become republican, and same thing with democraft.
Have you factored in Immigration? Most immigrants to US tend to be democrats.
I disagree. A lot of Latino families are "value voters" because of the whole Catholicism thing.
|
This can be easily solved by one way.
SMART PEOPLE HAVE MOAR KIDS NOW.
Seriously though, this is just a eugenics argument. There's a lot of good arguments on both sides.
Personally, I'm all for smart people reproducing. Honestly though, you really have to convince smart people to have a lot more kids. Also, you need to define smart. Technically, we can eventually raise the bar of smartness until the OP or anyone on TL.net is not smart enough to reproduce.
I don't think the OP would like that.
|
IQ scale is always going to have an average of 100. The relative intelligence of somone who scores 100 in a test is going to go down however.
What is important to note however, is there is always going to be more jobs out there for cleaners, gas station attendants, ppl working on checkout etc. than there will be lawyers, doctors, engineers etc.
So it all evens out to a strong workforce. Imagine if it was the other way around, you would have really intelligent people being forced to work as a shop assistant when they could be doing soo much more.
|
Dumb people don't necessarily breed dumb people, however...though that's certainly the trend.
In all honesty, I think it's most comforting to just not think about all this stuff...be apathetic and just play starcraft... -____-
Whenever I do sit down and think about this shit, I end up getting depressed and unmotivated from the overwhelming feeling of futility it brings on. ugh.
On November 09 2008 09:10 soudo wrote:
Question: Did the OP just finish watching Idiocracy when he posted this? If so, he totally didn't get the message at all.
Second, being democrat, republican, or how smart you are has nothing to do with how many kids you have. It's about how much wealth you have. The more wealth you have, the higher the opportunity cost it is to raise a child.
Example: Say some woman makes $1000 a month. She then goes on maternity leave and can't work for 9 of months. She loses $9000.
Now take a housewife. While the housewife is pregnant, she loses $0 since she brings in no income. The cost of raising a child for the housewife is a lot less than the other one. Both have to deal with the cost of providing for the child, but the working woman also has to deal with losses in wages.
Side note, don't you think you should check for your grammar when you're posting about how stupid other people are?
That's hardly the long and short of it...you also have to take into account culture, population density of the area, cost of living in the area, and whatever else.
If anything, it's been shown that wealthier people produce LESS children than their opposites. That's what the OP of this blog is bringing up.
|
...except by saying that the higher the opportunity cost it is to raise a child soudo is suggesting that as a reason which wealthy people are less likely to raise kids?
What's with all the people somehow taking soudo's comment as "Wealthy people will have lots of kids" when he is noting the higher relative cost for them to breed.
|
Survival of the fittest, man.
In this case dumb people are more fit to survive than them smart folks, which is pretty funny.
|
How do they measure how smart they are? Democrats tend to be smarter??
We also need to see who the sample was, and what location and bla bla bla, statistics stuff, make sure its not bias.
|
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).
|
On November 09 2008 08:50 XCetron wrote:
No, since you're implying all kids that are raised in a republican family will become republican, and same thing with democraft.
Have you factored in Immigration? Most immigrants to US tend to be democrats.
Family is the biggest influence on your political beliefs imo >.>
|
On November 09 2008 08:50 XCetron wrote:
No, since you're implying all kids that are raised in a republican family will become republican, and same thing with democraft.
Have you factored in Immigration? Most immigrants to US tend to be democrats.
The OP's main point was about stupidity, not political party, and if people that are genetically (not just learnedly) stupid breed and make more genetically stupid people, we will get an overall lower IQ.
|
On November 09 2008 13:53 Fen wrote:
IQ scale is always going to have an average of 100. The relative intelligence of somone who scores 100 in a test is going to go down however.
What is important to note however, is there is always going to be more jobs out there for cleaners, gas station attendants, ppl working on checkout etc. than there will be lawyers, doctors, engineers etc.
So it all evens out to a strong workforce. Imagine if it was the other way around, you would have really intelligent people being forced to work as a shop assistant when they could be doing soo much more.
If everyone was smart we wouldn't need people to do simple jobs because they would make a bunch of robots to do everything for us!!! ;D
|
to spin this theory with a starcraft flavor, there are more people with low apm than there are with high apm. likewise, there are more average skill to poor skill than there are highly skilled starcraft players. there are way way way less s class and a class and b class gamers than everyone else.
|
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.
|
I've seen plenty of cases where people that are perceived as dumb will pick up insanely complex concepts. The only major player in whether or not they take that extra step to learn, is the culture or peers around them. In short, there are many examples of people practicing "willful ignorance" in order to keep a niche in their peer-group or keep some sort of comfortable lifestyle, at least from what I've seen. Stupid and smart is way to vague.
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.
|
On November 09 2008 11:09 Nytefish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 09:48 Chef wrote:On November 09 2008 09:28 Nytefish wrote:On November 09 2008 09:19 Chef wrote:
There's average intelligence people, which I'd say make up 95% or so of the population. Their votes are determined by what they see in the media and what their friends tell them. The remaining 5% are either excessively dumb, and need no consideration, or extremely smart, and will hopefully guide the masses of average intelligence people. I'd say the OP of this thread is either average, or excessively dumb. That's a very odd definition of average. Also it's absurd to say people are either average, really dumb, or really smart. There's no sensible way to describe a sudden gap between "normal person" and "smart person", you get everything in between. Although, since we're on the topic of baseless assumptions, relatively speaking I'd say you're acting excessively dumb. Most people I meet everyday have about the same capacity for achievement. Once in awhile I'll meet someone really mindbogglingly smart that obviously just has the genetics to be better than everyone else. Likewise, once in awhile I'll walk past the special education classes. 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.
|
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
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 09 2008 22:54 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2008 11:09 Nytefish wrote:On November 09 2008 09:48 Chef wrote:On November 09 2008 09:28 Nytefish wrote:On November 09 2008 09:19 Chef wrote:
There's average intelligence people, which I'd say make up 95% or so of the population. Their votes are determined by what they see in the media and what their friends tell them. The remaining 5% are either excessively dumb, and need no consideration, or extremely smart, and will hopefully guide the masses of average intelligence people. I'd say the OP of this thread is either average, or excessively dumb. That's a very odd definition of average. Also it's absurd to say people are either average, really dumb, or really smart. There's no sensible way to describe a sudden gap between "normal person" and "smart person", you get everything in between. Although, since we're on the topic of baseless assumptions, relatively speaking I'd say you're acting excessively dumb. Most people I meet everyday have about the same capacity for achievement. Once in awhile I'll meet someone really mindbogglingly smart that obviously just has the genetics to be better than everyone else. Likewise, once in awhile I'll walk past the special education classes. 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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
He did say negligible difference actually.
And it's going to be a useless discussion because everyone's got a different idea of intelligence.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Oh I see.
I should read the entire topic better next time :-)
|
You can't label every child like that. I have friends who were born into a shitty family situation and they are putting themselves through school with loans and 3 jobs. Don't be surprised cause your probably spoiled rotten and are too stupid yourself to realize it.
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.
|
On November 09 2008 20:47 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
One has to define what "smart" is to even have this argument. Also the concepts of wisdom and intelligence also need to be addressed.
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".
|
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.
|
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.
|
The majority of my family is Republican - So why am I a Democrat? Your assumption fails.
I think it is in history that all things change. 10 million + DEMOCRAT voters this election proves nothing for both sides really. This election didnt come down to whether your a democrat or republican, it had to do with whether or not you fell for the "Barack is a socialist" scam or not. At least, what I got from my parents, who voted Mccain - they were afraid of "far left." My father usually votes Democrat but "far left" threw the decision which Im sure that was the same for many pro-mccain voters.
Depending on how well the president does, will sway whether or not the general public will follow or disperse - like Bush failing so Democrats get the votes. It doesnt mean maybe the American people wouldnt mind a Liberal outlook, it just means, ideally, situationally, this is what we need.
In my humble opinion:
Republicans breed strict conservatives or strict liberals. Democrats will breed independents and their 'game time' (election day vote) decision defines them.
|
Yee who defines dumb in society only parades stupidity [arrogance, and ignorance I might add] among those he judges.
Show me the money
|
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.
The point about IQ is not semantic bullshit. I think it's quite relevant that people who don't want 'stupid' people to breed tend to not know the meaning of IQ. But read my original post:
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).
I tend not to waste words, that phrase is there for a reason.
|
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).
What are these words then if you don't like to waste words, thats what made me think the way I thought since it do not make sense at all if you are trying to lecture him on the meaning of IQ.
|
lol " I have 5 kids who y'all callin' dumb" has 5 votes which is exactly 5% of the vote
|
generally i have noticed a lot of kids get their political leanings from their parents.
there are exceptions but it happens quite a lot. it makes sense, i mean there are those kids who hate their parents and rebel against everything they do, but a lot of kids are fairly loyal to their parents and look up to them (especially boys looking up to fathers etc) and so i think quite often they end up rubbing off a lot of their views on that kid.
i know i absorbed a lot of my politics from my mother for example. she's pretty much a hippy and i don't think it's a coincidence that i ended up pretty left leaning
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Heritability-from-twin-correlations1.jpg)
