So Liberals...

[cromagnum]

You remind me a little of myself, especially that rebellious streak when it comes to overly dictatorial teachers.  Your suggestion about a nutrition and education thread is interesting.  I'm not what you'd call a nutrition expert, but I'd certainly welcome the chance to read the opinions of those who are.  I tend to have strong opinions about certain aspects of education, which is totally out of character for me.    I may start a thread about the topic once this discussion has run its natural course.

742638[/snapback]

In newengland the bigdig project is heated on the radio and all forms of media news....I't was the most exspensive gov't construction project funded by taxpayers....Discussed in th 70's started in 90? finished in 04...Over budget and with flaws, sh-- happens...I found this video of a tunnel in russia that's 3150 meters long, the longest in-city tunnel of europe, there is a river running over it and water leaks at some points...When the temperature reaches -38 degrees ''c'' like it did this winter, the road freezes and the results is this video taken during a single day with a tunnel cam, check out the bus. Educational and entertaining

http://rcandersonmarketing.podomatic.com/e...T11_42_37-07_00

 

 

 

Also located in the above link is a six minute reflection of recent education and how technologies are used as a learning tool...

http://www.podomatic.com/s/politics?p=3&t=#

 

Education and technolgy as a tool.

http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/Jahia/whatschanged

 

http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/events.asp

[Orton's Arm]

Minus Holcombs nitpicking about your statistical terminology, I finally understand and agree whole heartedly with you analysis.  And that is why welfare through the WIC program is so important,  a government program that he and others rail against.  Without it, the difference in IQs in the U.S. as exemplied by Holcombs example in a later post would be more stark. 

It looks like it's time for me to revisit CTM's analysis of the subject. (@CTM: would it offend you if I called you Monkey?)

 

His argument consisted of several points:

1. The connection between genetics and intelligence is poorly understood. There's some truth to this. At the same time, we know that for American adults, the strongest predictor of intelligence is the intelligence of their parents.

2. Regression towards the mean. Few people are aware of this phenomenon. The fact CTM is one of these people increases his credibility in my eyes.

 

Basically, regression toward the mean indicates the following. Suppose a woman with an IQ of 140 were to have children. Also suppose she was part of a population group with an average IQ of 100. This woman should expect her children to have IQs halfway between her 140 IQ and the average IQ of 100. Also, these IQs will be normally distributed, which means her children are likely to vary in intelligence.

 

The next generation, when the child with the 120 IQ marries, regression towards the mean will cause this person's children to have an expected IQ of 110. CTM's contention is that over time, regression towards the mean will cause any given eugenics program to fail; as each succeeding generation becomes more like the overall average.

 

A eugenics program would address this problem in two ways: it would overcome regression toward the mean through sheer numbers, and it would raise the overall average.

 

I don't want this paragraph to get too technical, so I've put all the stats stuff in parentheses. Suppose a woman was smarter than 739 out of every 740. (Three standard deviations above the mean.) Her children would, on average, be smarter than roughly 933 people out of every 1000 (1.5 standard devitions above the mean). However, these kids would vary in intelligence (because their intelligence is normally distributed). If the woman had 15 children, the expected outcome would be for one of those children to be at least as smart as her. If a woman of average intelligence wanted to have an equally intelligent child, she would need to have 740 children.

 

In this example, the brilliant woman would actually need to have 30 children so that there would be two kids as smart as her. Obviously, expecting her to have that many children is unrealistic.

 

That's where the second force comes in--raising the average level of intelligence. For example, say that this woman's IQ was 145, and the average population's was 100. Suppose you were to increase the population's average IQ level by 15 points. Now the woman doesn't need to have 30 kids to ensure two will be as smart as herself. She only needs 12.

 

But suppose this woman only has ten kids. Will the overall number of really smart people decline from one generation to the next? Not necessarily. Because the average person is now smarter, one child out of every 44 born to a woman of average intelligence will have an I.Q. of 145 or better. It's not great, but it's sure better than the 1 out of 740 situation that existed earlier. A 1 out of 44 chance may not sound like much, but there are a lot of women of roughly average intelligence. They'll do their share to ensure the next generation has really smart people.

 

If a woman of average intelligence can have a child with a 145 IQ, why have a eugenics program? Because her chances of having such a child are nearly 17 times better if you can increase the average level of intelligence from 100 to 115. The smarter someone is, the more their children will help create that increase. Conversely, the less intelligent someone is, the more their children tend to hold this increase back.

 

I'd also like to illustrate the danger of a falling IQ. Suppose the U.S.'s average IQ fell from 100 to 85. If the average IQ is 100, a woman of average intelligence has a 1 in 740 chance of producing someone with a 145 IQ or better. If the average level of intelligence falls to 85, a woman of average intelligence will need to have over 31,000 children to produce just one child with an IQ over 145. Moreover, a woman with an IQ of 145 will need to have 44 children in order for just one of them to be as smart as herself. This is because regression toward the mean produces progressively harsher effects as the average level of intelligence declines.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It looks like it's time for me to revisit CTM's analysis of the subject.  (@CTM: would it offend you if I called you Monkey?) 

 

His argument consisted of several points:

1. The connection between genetics and intelligence is poorly understood.  There's some truth to this.  At the same time, we know that for American adults, the strongest predictor of intelligence is the intelligence of their parents.

2. Regression towards the mean.  Few people are aware of this phenomenon.  The fact CTM is one of these people increases his credibility in my eyes. 

 

Basically, regression toward the mean indicates the following.  Suppose a woman with an IQ of 140 were to have children.  Also suppose she was part of a population group with an average IQ of 100.  This woman should expect her children to have IQs halfway between her 140 IQ and the average IQ of 100.  Also, these IQs will be normally distributed, which means her children are likely to vary in intelligence.

 

The next generation, when the child with the 120 IQ marries, regression towards the mean will cause this person's children to have an expected IQ of 110.  CTM's contention is that over time, regression towards the mean will cause any given eugenics program to fail; as each succeeding generation becomes more like the overall average. 

 

A eugenics program would address this problem in two ways: it would overcome regression toward the mean through sheer numbers, and it would raise the overall average.

 

I don't want this paragraph to get too technical, so I've put all the stats stuff in parentheses.  Suppose a woman was smarter than 739 out of every 740.  (Three standard deviations above the mean.)  Her children would, on average, be smarter than roughly 933 people out of every 1000 (1.5 standard devitions above the mean).  However, these kids would vary in intelligence (because their intelligence is normally distributed).  If the woman had 15 children, the expected outcome would be for one of those children to be at least as smart as her.  If a woman of average intelligence wanted to have an equally intelligent child, she would need to have 740 children. 

 

In this example, the brilliant woman would actually need to have 30 children so that there would be two kids as smart as her.  Obviously, expecting her to have that many children is unrealistic.

 

That's where the second force comes in--raising the average level of intelligence.  For example, say that this woman's IQ was 145, and the average population's was 100.  Suppose you were to increase the population's average IQ level by 15 points.  Now the woman doesn't need to have 30 kids to ensure two will be as smart as herself.  She only needs 12. 

 

But suppose this woman only has ten kids.  Will the overall number of really smart people decline from one generation to the next?  Not necessarily.  Because the average person is now smarter, one child out of every 44 born to a woman of average intelligence will have an I.Q. of 145 or better.  It's not great, but it's sure better than the 1 out of 740 situation that existed earlier.  A 1 out of 44 chance may not sound like much, but there are a lot of women of roughly average intelligence.  They'll do their share to ensure the next generation has really smart people.

 

If a woman of average intelligence can have a child with a 145 IQ, why have a eugenics program?  Because her chances of having such a child are nearly 17 times better if you can increase the average level of intelligence from 100 to 115.  The smarter someone is, the more their children will help create that increase.  Conversely, the less intelligent someone is, the more their children tend to hold this increase back. 

 

I'd also like to illustrate the danger of a falling IQ.  Suppose the U.S.'s average IQ fell from 100 to 85.  If the average IQ is 100, a woman of average intelligence has a 1 in 740 chance of producing someone with a 145 IQ or better.  If the average level of intelligence falls to 85, a woman of average intelligence will need to have over 31,000 children to produce just one child with an IQ over 145.  Moreover, a woman with an IQ of 145 will need to have 44 children in order for just one of them to be as smart as herself.  This is because regression toward the mean produces progressively harsher effects as the average level of intelligence declines.

742669[/snapback]

 

All you've just said is "If I arbitrarily redefine "normal", a eugenics program will work to establish the arbitrary redefinition." That is, if the bell curve shifts towards greater intelligence, people will have smarter kids. Of course, your conjecture was originally that people should be bred to have smarter kids to shift the bell curve towards greater intelligence. So you're right...when cause isn't required to precede effect.

 

Nicely crafted argument, though. I had to read it three times to catch the bull sh--.

[Chilly]

I suppose so.  In any case, my sig is merely one of a series of sigs that explore the reasons for TD's failure.  In earlier sigs, I've mentioned the lack of success TD experienced in the first and second rounds. 

 

Bills: current starters chosen in rounds 1 - 2 (2001 - 2005)

Lee Evans (WR)

Willis McGahee (RB)

Nate Clements (CB)

Aaron Schobel (DE)

Chris Kelsay (DE)

 

Patriots: current starters chosen in rounds 1 - 2 (2001 - 2005)

Deion Branch (WR)

Richard Seymour (DE)

Matt Light (LT)

Ty Warren (DE)

Eugene Wilson (FS)

Vince Wilfork (DT)

Ben Watson (TE)

Logan Mankins (OG)

 

Notice TD's list has only five names to the Patriots' 8.  Also, TD only found one quality lineman (Aaron Schobel); whereas the Patriots found four or five.  Which team do you think will win the battle of the trenches?

742265[/snapback]

 

Most teams have only a couple starters on their offensive line that they drafted, and a few from free agency. Current O-line starters drafted by TD: Jonas Jennings, Jason Peters, is actually not that out of the ordinary.

 

On the defensive line, having 2/4 starters players that you drafted also isn't out of the ordinary in today's NFL. The round that players were drafted in actually means a lot less then the value that a lot of people put on it.

 

Fact is that most positions on football teams are developed with a combination of the draft and free agency. To compare one team's draft to one that has had above average draft results and runs their franchise based upon that is unfair to TD because its not a realistic expectation.

 

TD's biggest failure was not getting in a coach that could actually be a head coach in this league. His second failure was being unable to manage talent on both lines. He let Jennings go and signed offensive lineman who weren't very good. He also didn't resign Pat Williams (which hurt the most) and never found another outside DE to compete with Kelsay.

 

With NFL GMs, due to multiple ways of building your team, a hollistic approach to evaluating the front office is necessary. Otherwise, its like comparing two different strategies, one that might not work for your organization but works fine somewhere else, and saying that its clearly better, when it would fail for you.

[/dev/null]

keep it up guys and the mods will have to move this thread

[Orton's Arm]

Education and technolgy as a tool.

Interesting links. You're tempting me to start an education thread.

[Orton's Arm]

All you've just said is "If I arbitrarily redefine "normal", a eugenics program will work to establish the arbitrary redefinition."  That is, if the bell curve shifts towards greater intelligence, people will have smarter kids.  Of course, your conjecture was originally that people should be bred to have smarter kids to shift the bell curve towards greater intelligence.  So you're right...when cause isn't required to precede effect. 

 

Nicely crafted argument, though.  I had to read it three times to catch the bull sh--.

742766[/snapback]

Your argument hinges on cause versus effect. What causes regression toward the mean in the first place? The facts as we know them are these:

- For Americans, environment is generally good enough to not affect intelligence.

- A person's intelligence is strongly predicted by two factors: the intelligence of his or her parents, and the average intelligence of the population group to which the parents belong.

 

What underlying forces could create these phenomena? It took me a while, but I arrived at an explanation which fits the facts as we know them.

 

Take Marilyn vos Savant. In what I'll call column 1 are the intelligence-related genes that are expressed--the ones which give her her >200 I.Q. In column 2 are the intelligence-related genes which aren't expressed. Because the column 2 genes aren't expressed, her amazing I.Q. tells us nothing about what these genes are actually like. The only piece of information we have is the average intelligence level of the population group to which vos Savant belongs. While these column 2 genes could be anything, on average they will be the same as the population group to which the smart woman belongs.

 

Now suppose vos Savant has kids. These kids will get a mixture of her column 1 genes (which will make them smart) and her column 2 genes (which will usually be genes associated with average intelligence). The expected value of her kids' intelligence is halfway between vos Savant's and the population mean--exactly as regression toward the mean indicates.

 

Will vos Savant's descendents create a long-term increase in the average level of intelligence? Yes. On average, a smart woman's column 2 genes will create neither an increase or decrease in the average level of intelligence, but her column 1 genes will increase it. After averaging the two, you still have an increase, albeit not as big an increase as would have been the case had everything been driven by column 1 alone. In a world where smart women had the most kids, the intelligence-related genes in column 2 would gradually improve, thereby creating the effects I described in that earlier post.

 

I'd like to end by making one final point. To the best of my knowledge, the column 1/column 2 idea I've proposed hasn't been proven. It is, however, an explanation that fits the facts as we know them. Under this explanation, a eugenics program would improve the gene pool. I know it will be tempting for you to dwell on the fact my idea hasn't been proven. But before doing so, please consider whether there is an alternative explanation that a) also fits all the facts, and b) makes attention to the gene pool unnecessary. I personally doubt such an explanation exists, but I'm willing to listen if you think I've overlooked something.

[cromagnum]

Interesting links.  You're tempting me to start an education thread.

743149[/snapback]

Looking forward to it, your a very smart and articulate poster with respectful responses to posters.. I'm starting to delve into freedom of speech and reading about it in the constitution...I believe it's the 2nd amendment on the bill of rights that explains that right and the right to bear arms..Looks to be an interesting topic in my opinion...I need to do basic research on that issue and then I will Hopefully start a thread on it and we can read ALL the posters opinions and facts they bring to the discussion...If I'm unable to do that for some reason, you might like to delve into that very important american constitutional guarantee.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your argument hinges on cause versus effect.  What causes regression toward the mean in the first place?  The facts as we know them are these:

- For Americans, environment is generally good enough to not affect intelligence.

- A person's intelligence is strongly predicted by two factors: the intelligence of his or her parents, and the average intelligence of the population group to which the parents belong. 

 

What underlying forces could create these phenomena?  It took me a while, but I arrived at an explanation which fits the facts as we know them. 

 

Take Marilyn vos Savant.  In what I'll call column 1 are the intelligence-related genes that are expressed--the ones which give her her >200 I.Q.  In column 2 are the intelligence-related genes which aren't expressed.  Because the column 2 genes aren't expressed, her amazing I.Q. tells us nothing about what these genes are actually like.  The only piece of information we have is the average intelligence level of the population group to which vos Savant belongs.  While these column 2 genes could be anything, on average they will be the same as the population group to which the smart woman belongs.

 

Now suppose vos Savant has kids.  These kids will get a mixture of her column 1 genes (which will make them smart) and her column 2 genes (which will usually be genes associated with average intelligence).  The expected value of her kids' intelligence is halfway between vos Savant's and the population mean--exactly as regression toward the mean indicates. 

 

Will vos Savant's descendents create a long-term increase in the average level of intelligence?  Yes.  On average, a smart woman's column 2 genes will create neither an increase or decrease in the average level of intelligence, but her column 1 genes will increase it.  After averaging the two, you still have an increase, albeit not as big an increase as would have been the case had everything been driven by column 1 alone.  In a world where smart women had the most kids, the intelligence-related genes in column 2 would gradually improve, thereby creating the effects I described in that earlier post. 

 

I'd like to end by making one final point.  To the best of my knowledge, the column 1/column 2 idea I've proposed hasn't been proven.  It is, however, an explanation that fits the facts as we know them.  Under this explanation, a eugenics program would improve the gene pool.  I know it will be tempting for you to dwell on the fact my idea hasn't been proven.  But before doing so, please consider whether there is an alternative explanation that a) also fits all the facts, and b) makes attention to the gene pool unnecessary.  I personally doubt such an explanation exists, but I'm willing to listen if you think I've overlooked something.

743190[/snapback]

 

And thus, the tautology is complete.

[Chilly]

And thus, the tautology is complete. 

743291[/snapback]

 

I feel that his post is very long and your post is short.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I feel that his post is very long and your post is short.

743292[/snapback]

 

Eugenics, man. As long and short posts breed, over time the average post will become more verbose yet say less...

[Orton's Arm]

And thus, the tautology is complete. 

It's been a few posts since you last used the icon. I was wondering how long you'd be able to abstain.

 

The refutation you made--that my post was a tautology--falls well below your usual standards. My post overviewed basic facts about intelligence, then went on to provide a credible explanation about the underlying factors which may be causing what we observe. I invited you to provide an alternative explanation for these facts; one which makes attention to the gene pool unnecessary. While I may have made mistakes in that post, I assure you falling into the tautology trap wasn't one of them.

 

Is there a way in which my explanation of regression toward the mean fails to fit the facts? You have not mentioned any. Do you have an alternative, non-genetically based way to explain the regression toward the mean? You have not mentioned any such explanation.

 

I knew going into this I wasn't going to convince you. Your characterization of my views as "Nazi" tells me that maybe you weren't listening with a fully open mind. I suspect that regardless of what I write, you'll go on believing government policies can't help or harm the quality of the gene pool. To believe otherwise would lead you down a road you just don't want to travel. I respect your right to believe as you choose. If you no longer want to discuss this issue seriously, I'm okay with moving on to the next topic. On the other hand, I'm still willing to respond to any substansive comments you or others might make.

[Orton's Arm]

I need to do basic research on that issue and then I will Hopefully start a thread on it

Thanks for the kind words. I'm looking forward to the thread!

[Chilly]

Eugenics, man.  As long and short posts breed, over time the average post will become more verbose yet say less...

743432[/snapback]

 

[Typical TBD Guy]

There's truth to this.  A woman who starts having kids at age 20, and who has a large family, will find most of her adult life consumed by this task.  To some extent this burden could be eased by free daycare, but even with that she will probably need to put her career on hold for a while.  This would create short-term pain for the U.S., as intelligent women took time away from their careers to raise large families.  The long-term benefits from these families would be experienced by future generations. 

 

The second point you raised is that my suggestions would take away people's freedom.  I don't feel the government should forbid less intelligent couples from having children, nor do I feel the government should force smart people to have kids.  I just want to see financial incentives to encourage specific types of behavior.  The U.S. government freely uses financial incentives to encourage all sorts of behavior anyway, so it's not like the programs I'm advocating would reduce the level of freedom.  I just feel that if you're using financial incentives, you may as well use them to achieve something constructive for a change.

 

As for how I'd feel if I didn't make the cutoff--it would be a tough break, and I'd feel bad about it.  But I've dealt with worse things than blows to my ego or a government's refusal to provide subsidies for my kids.  I'd liken the experience to getting rejected by the college you really wanted to go to.  Yes, your feelings are hurt, and yes, it may well affect the future course of your life.  It's a tough break, but you move on.

 

Edit: I'd like to address your point about curing cancer.  You're right to say you need more than just smart people--it takes work, luck, etc.  In my list of government responsibilities, I mentioned improving the gene pool, which gives you the smart people you need as a starting point.  I also mentioned the government should be doing a good job with education, and that it should fund publicly beneficial projects such as basic scientific research.  So if you give yourself a pool of really smart people, educate them in a school system which actually cares about education, and then proceed to fund their cancer research efforts, you're doing everything you can to maximize the chance of a cure for cancer.  The hard work and luck are up to them.

742451[/snapback]

 

You've defended your points very well in this thread, Mr. Arm, but the bottom line is that we disagree strongly over the fundamental role of government. This would be another topic altogether, and one which I doubt will get anyone to change their minds.

 

If you'd like to see our government offer financial incentives to encourage more intelligent offspring, all the power to you. Start contacting your local politicians and see what comes of it. However, two major questions (among many more, I'm sure) need to be addressed first before embarking on such a task:

 

1. How do you define intelligence? Because there are lots of different types of intellectual abilities, many of which the standard IQ test does not determine.

 

2. How will you explain your government-sponsored eugenics plan to blacks, Hispanics, and other groups who tend to not perform well on the usual suspects of standardized intelligence tests (IQ, SAT, GRE, etc...)?

[Kelly the Dog]

All I can add to this is that Holcomb's Arm is getting weaker and weaker every time we see him. And he was never that strong to begin with.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

All I can add to this is that Holcomb's Arm is getting weaker and weaker every time we see him. And he was never that strong to begin with.

743814[/snapback]

 

Eugenics works both ways, of course...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Eugenics works both ways, of course...

743830[/snapback]

[Kelly the Dog]

Eugenics works both ways, of course...

743830[/snapback]

True. I am beginning to think that perhaps he was the hellspawn of Holcomb's Crank and Holcomb's kitty.

[Orton's Arm]

You've defended your points very well in this thread, Mr. Arm, but the bottom line is that we disagree strongly over the fundamental role of government. This would be another topic altogether, and one which I doubt will get anyone to change their minds.

 

If you'd like to see our government offer financial incentives to encourage more intelligent offspring, all the power to you. Start contacting your local politicians and see what comes of it. However, two major questions (among many more, I'm sure) need to be addressed first before embarking on such a task:

 

1. How do you define intelligence? Because there are lots of different types of intellectual abilities, many of which the standard IQ test does not determine.

 

2. How will you explain your government-sponsored eugenics plan to blacks, Hispanics, and other groups who tend to not perform well on the usual suspects of standardized intelligence tests (IQ, SAT, GRE, etc...)?

You ask two very good questions.

 

1. Is there such a thing as generic intelligence? Every language in the world has a word which means "smart" or "intelligent" or something similar. How do you go about quantifying this thing? Mensa has developed expertise in determining which tests are generic aptitude tests, because such expertise is required for their admissions process. The group is apolitical, so I'd trust them more than I'd trust someone with an ideological agenda they want to prove.

 

What about someone who scores poorly on the general aptitude test, yet has a special knack for, say, carpentry? Wouldn't this person's genes be at least as useful to the next generation as those of someone who did a little better on the test, yet lacks this special gift? Perhaps so. But attempting to measure such specific things is impractical. Assuming the gift of carpentry isn't correlated with intelligence, the measures I propose would neither increase nor decrease the proportion of people who have that carpentry knack.

 

But, some might say, certain gifts seem negatively correlated with intelligence. Many believe exceptionally smart people often lack social skills or street smarts. While this may well be true, a brilliant scientist or engineer is exceptionally useful even if he lacks social skills or street smarts. In any case, equally brilliant engineers with social skills will do a better job of attracting mates and having children than engineers who lack social awareness.

 

2. You ask me how I'd explain my eugenics plan to groups who tend to do poorly on standardized aptitude tests. In, say, an all-black nation, the measures I've described would increase the intelligence level without affecting the country's racial composition. The same is true with an all-Hispanic nation or an all-white nation. The problem, as you point out, is that in a mixed-race nation, groups that tend to do worse on aptitude tests may not like a government program that would decrease their share of the overall population.

 

On the other hand, white people aren't allowed to voice similar complaints. Pat Buchanan, for example, made the comment that the U.S. needed to reform its immigration policy if it intended to remain a white nation. His opponents were quick to label him an extremist and a Nazi. In the U.S., government policies which tend to increase the proportion of whites (as my eugenics program would) can be objected to on racial grounds. Policies which tend to decrease the proportion of whites (such as the way we handle immigration) cannot be objected to on racial grounds. Having different standards for different races is unjust. Either the government should avoid all policies which change this nation's racial composition, or it should adopt policies without regards to how these policies would affect racial composition. If the first is the case, people of all races should join Buchanan in his racially-based objections to U.S. immigration policy. If the latter is the case, the eugenics programs I suggest shouldn't be objected to on racial grounds.