Err America files Chapter 11

[GG]

The real question is whether we should be making the population smarter.

815153[/snapback]

 

Sounds like the real question to you is how to impose a supremacist policy without making it sound like one. Quite the quandary, no?

 

So, again, how do you line up contestants for America's Stupidest Woman?

[Johnny Coli]

I remember Ramius calling both me and my ideas stupid, and himself quite knowledgeable, but I don't recall him making much effort to back any of this up with actual evidence.

815153[/snapback]

You will not get a debate from most people in the scientific community (myself included, as this will be the only post I make to you on this subject in this thread) for the same reasons that we will not enter into debate with creationists.

 

You are arguing from a position that, even when presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contary, you will not budge from. Your interpretation of genetics is so far off it's barely worth discussing, and that you are using this interpretation to frame your argument for eugenics only highlights why the majority of the scientific community brushes it off as pseudo science.

 

You mention selective breeding for desirable characteristics. Intelligence is not a characteristic like pea plant height, corn kernal shape, or hair color in cats. In trying to breed selectively for a trait that is influenced by hundreds of interacting molecular pathways, outside environmental factors and influences, and most certainly diet, you risk the chance of increasing the number of deleterious alleles in the population's gene pool. Genetic diversity in the gene pool immunizes a population from disasterous events because a trait that may be considered undesirable can often become desirable if the conditions/environmment surrounding the population change.

 

Genes are not easily interchangable dots on a line. They are linked and selectively breeding for one, or even worse, an unknown number leading to a subjective characteristic like intelligence could lead to disasterous and possibly the opposite results to which you intended. Yes, we can use model organisms like corn or fruit flies to study the genetics of kernal shape or eye color, but we know that these are influenced by simple biochemical pathways and the result of a single allele. Intelligence is not in this category.

 

You can try and frame your argument using simple punnett squares , but intelligence is not a "50% chance of getting the smart gene and 50% chance of getting the stupid gene." Using selective breeding to influence the intelligence of a population is 100% stupid.

[Ramius]

You will not get a debate from most people in the scientific community (myself included, as this will be the only post I make to you on this subject in this thread) for the same reasons that we will not enter into debate with creationists. 

 

You are arguing from a position that, even when presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contary, you will not budge from.  Your interpretation of genetics is so far off it's barely worth discussing, and that you are using this interpretation to frame your argument for eugenics only highlights why the majority of the scientific community brushes it off as pseudo science.

 

You mention selective breeding for desirable characteristics.  Intelligence is not a characteristic like pea plant height, corn kernal shape, or hair color in cats.  In trying to breed selectively for a trait that is influenced by hundreds of interacting molecular pathways, outside environmental factors and influences, and most certainly diet, you risk the chance of increasing the number of deleterious alleles in the population's gene pool.  Genetic diversity in the gene pool immunizes a population from disasterous events because a trait that may be considered undesirable can often become desirable if the conditions/environmment surrounding the population change. 

 

Genes are not easily interchangable dots on a line.  They are linked and selectively breeding for one, or even worse, an unknown number leading to a subjective characteristic like intelligence could lead to disasterous and possibly the opposite results to which you intended.  Yes, we can use model organisms like corn or fruit flies to study the genetics of kernal shape or eye color, but we know that these are influenced by simple biochemical pathways and the result of a single allele.  Intelligence is not in this category.

 

You can try and frame your argument using simple punnett squares , but intelligence is not a "50% chance of getting the smart gene and 50% chance of getting the stupid gene."  Using selective breeding to influence the intelligence of a population is 100% stupid.

815220[/snapback]

 

Thank you Johnny. I was just getting ready to post how oversimplified HA is trying to make this concept.

 

Now lets see if he can actually UNDERSTAND it.

[Bungee Jumper]

You will not get a debate from most people in the scientific community (myself included, as this will be the only post I make to you on this subject in this thread) for the same reasons that we will not enter into debate with creationists. 

 

You are arguing from a position that, even when presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contary, you will not budge from.  Your interpretation of genetics is so far off it's barely worth discussing, and that you are using this interpretation to frame your argument for eugenics only highlights why the majority of the scientific community brushes it off as pseudo science.

 

You mention selective breeding for desirable characteristics.  Intelligence is not a characteristic like pea plant height, corn kernal shape, or hair color in cats.  In trying to breed selectively for a trait that is influenced by hundreds of interacting molecular pathways, outside environmental factors and influences, and most certainly diet, you risk the chance of increasing the number of deleterious alleles in the population's gene pool.  Genetic diversity in the gene pool immunizes a population from disasterous events because a trait that may be considered undesirable can often become desirable if the conditions/environmment surrounding the population change. 

 

Genes are not easily interchangable dots on a line.  They are linked and selectively breeding for one, or even worse, an unknown number leading to a subjective characteristic like intelligence could lead to disasterous and possibly the opposite results to which you intended.  Yes, we can use model organisms like corn or fruit flies to study the genetics of kernal shape or eye color, but we know that these are influenced by simple biochemical pathways and the result of a single allele.  Intelligence is not in this category.

 

You can try and frame your argument using simple punnett squares , but intelligence is not a "50% chance of getting the smart gene and 50% chance of getting the stupid gene."  Using selective breeding to influence the intelligence of a population is 100% stupid.

815220[/snapback]

 

Clearly, you don't know anything about dog breeding.

[Orton's Arm]

You will not get a debate from most people in the scientific community (myself included, as this will be the only post I make to you on this subject in this thread) for the same reasons that we will not enter into debate with creationists.

You seem like a well-informed poster, but there's massive scientific support for the concept that intelligence is passed from one generation to the next. You appear to be comparing this concept to Creationism, which is either very misleading or deeply partisan.

You are arguing from a position that, even when presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contary, you will not budge from. 

To which "overwhelming evidence" are you referring? Most of those who've disagreed with me have done so using emotion-laden terms such as "Nazi," "idiot," etc. Few people have attempted to back their emotions up with actual facts. Even Bungee Jumper, who has generally produced the most cerebral posts arguing the case against eugenics, will say something like "you don't understand correlation" without showing how a correct understanding would undermine the case for eugenics. His Monte Carlo simulation would have been a more definitive attack, but apparently it didn't produce the results he'd expected. Your statement that I've been "presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary" is a complete departure from reality.

Your interpretation of genetics is so far off it's barely worth discussing, and that you are using this interpretation to frame your argument for eugenics only highlights why the majority of the scientific community brushes it off as pseudo science.

Research into intelligence is a controversial issue. Consider the statement with 52 signatories, to which I alluded earlier. There were those who agreed with its statements, yet were too fearful of career consequences to actually sign it. But even in the deeply politicized environment that's been created, there were 52 people brave enough to sign a document which stated, among other things, that 40 - 80% of the variation in people's intelligence levels is driven by differences in genetics.

 

The genetic component of intelligence is mainstream science. The concept that genetically driven traits are passed from one generation to the next is mainstream science. Your use of the word "pseudoscience" to describe either or both of these phenomena smacks of desperation or of partisanship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your views are similar to those of Stephen Jay Gould.

You mention selective breeding for desirable characteristics.  Intelligence is not a characteristic like pea plant height, corn kernal shape, or hair color in cats. 

Intelligence is, however, a trait that widely differs among different breeds of dogs, and to some degree among breeds of cats. Selective breeding has worked in creating intelligence differences in animals, so the burden of proof is on you to show why it wouldn't work for humans.

In trying to breed selectively for a trait that is influenced by hundreds of interacting molecular pathways, outside environmental factors and influences, and most certainly diet, you risk the chance of increasing the number of deleterious alleles in the population's gene pool.  Genetic diversity in the gene pool immunizes a population from disasterous events because a trait that may be considered undesirable can often become desirable if the conditions/environmment surrounding the population change. 

Very high intelligence is a rare trait, which a successful eugenics program would increase. By increasing the frequency of rare and desirable traits, you're increasing the diversity of the gene pool.

 

But, you say, you're increasing genetic diversity along one dimension, while perhaps reducing it along others. If most smart people were, say, inbred rednecks from one particular spot in Appalachia, this concern would be valid. In fact, smart people come from a wide variety of backgrounds. I see no genetic benefit, either from a genetic diversity standpoint or for any other reason, for smart people to have fewer children than everyone else. Yet such is currently the case.

Genes are not easily interchangable dots on a line.  They are linked and selectively breeding for one, or even worse, an unknown number leading to a subjective characteristic like intelligence could lead to disasterous and possibly the opposite results to which you intended.  Yes, we can use model organisms like corn or fruit flies to study the genetics of kernal shape or eye color, but we know that these are influenced by simple biochemical pathways and the result of a single allele.  Intelligence is not in this category.

 

You can try and frame your argument using simple punnett squares , but intelligence is not a "50% chance of getting the smart gene and 50% chance of getting the stupid gene."  Using selective breeding to influence the intelligence of a population is 100% stupid.

815220[/snapback]

You suggest that selectively breeding for intelligence could lead to any number of unknown consequences, including getting the opposite results to which I intended. But far from supporting such fears, research into the field of human intelligence has demolished the basis for them. Consider table 2 from the following paper:

When both parents had I.Q.s above 119, 81% of their children had I.Q.s above 119.

When only one parent had an I.Q. above 119, 62% of the children had an I.Q. above 119.

When both parents had I.Q.s below 119, but at least one has an I.Q. above 104, 30% of the children had an I.Q. above 119.

When both parents had an I.Q. below 105, only 12% of their children had an I.Q. above 119.

The article itself does a very good job of discussing the genetic component of intelligence. It was published in "Personality and Individual Differences."

[Bungee Jumper]

You seem like a well-informed poster, but there's massive scientific support for the concept that intelligence is passed from one generation to the next. You appear to be comparing this concept to Creationism, which is either very misleading or deeply partisan.

 

To which "overwhelming evidence" are you referring? Most of those who've disagreed with me have done so using emotion-laden terms such as "Nazi," "idiot," etc. Few people have attempted to back their emotions up with actual facts. Even Bungee Jumper, who has generally produced the most cerebral posts arguing the case against eugenics, will say something like "you don't understand correlation" without showing how a correct understanding would undermine the case for eugenics. His Monte Carlo simulation would have been a more definitive attack, but apparently it didn't produce the results he'd expected. Your statement that I've been "presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary" is a complete departure from reality.

 

Research into intelligence is a controversial issue. Consider the statement with 52 signatories, to which I alluded earlier. There were those who agreed with its statements, yet were too fearful of career consequences to actually sign it. But even in the deeply politicized environment that's been created, there were 52 people brave enough to sign a document which stated, among other things, that 40 - 80% of the variation in people's intelligence levels is driven by differences in genetics.

 

The genetic component of intelligence is mainstream science. The concept that genetically driven traits are passed from one generation to the next is mainstream science. Your use of the word "pseudoscience" to describe either or both of these phenomena smacks of desperation or of partisanship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your views are similar to those of Stephen Jay Gould.

 

Intelligence is, however, a trait that widely differs among different breeds of dogs, and to some degree among breeds of cats. Selective breeding has worked in creating intelligence differences in animals, so the burden of proof is on you to show why it wouldn't work for humans.

 

Very high intelligence is a rare trait, which a successful eugenics program would increase. By increasing the frequency of rare and desirable traits, you're increasing the diversity of the gene pool.

 

But, you say, you're increasing genetic diversity along one dimension, while perhaps reducing it along others. If most smart people were, say, inbred rednecks from one particular spot in Appalachia, this concern would be valid. In fact, smart people come from a wide variety of backgrounds. I see no genetic benefit, either from a genetic diversity standpoint or for any other reason, for smart people to have fewer children than everyone else. Yet such is currently the case.

You suggest that selectively breeding for intelligence could lead to any number of unknown consequences, including getting the opposite results to which I intended. But far from supporting such fears, research into the field of human intelligence has demolished the basis for them. Consider table 2 from the following paper:

When both parents had I.Q.s above 119, 81% of their children had I.Q.s above 119.

When only one parent had an I.Q. above 119, 62% of the children had an I.Q. above 119.

When both parents had I.Q.s below 119, but at least one has an I.Q. above 104, 30% of the children had an I.Q. above 119.

When both parents had an I.Q. below 105, only 12% of their children had an I.Q. above 119.

The article itself does a very good job of discussing the genetic component of intelligence. It was published in "Personality and Individual Differences."

815729[/snapback]

 

You really have to start actually reading what you link to.

[IBTG81]

Clearly, you don't know anything about dog breeding.     

815339[/snapback]

 

I'm sure you're an "expert" on that, too.

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm sure you're an "expert" on that, too. 

815783[/snapback]

 

Remember when you had an original thought?

 

Yeah, neither does anyone else.

[IBTG81]

Remember when you had an original thought?

 

Yeah, neither does anyone else.

815794[/snapback]

 

That's your best comeback?

[Orton's Arm]

You really have to start actually reading what you link to. 

815780[/snapback]

I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the article. One of its main premises is that intelligence is largely determined by whether you have the M1 or M2 genetic allele. He illustrates this point in the following paragraph:

In the monograph by Weiss (1982a; Weiss, Lehrl and Frank, 1986) from the review of the most important family studies of giftedness (Terman and Oden, 1948; Oden 1968), of top scientists (Visher, 1948), top managers (Warner and Abegglen, 1955), top inventors (Rossmann, 1930), famous men (Maas, 1916; Juda 1953) and of top performers in high schools (Rüdin, 1951) the following conclusion could be generalized: an unskilled worker can have a highly gifted grandchild, but has only in very exceptional cases has a highly gifted child. In full accord with a major gene theory of human intelligence, social mobility from one extreme of the social ladder to another needs at least two generations. (A homozygote M2M2 can never procreate a M1M1 child. He has to marry a M1M2 wife, if his grandchild will have a chance to be M1M1.)

M1, the allele associated with high intelligence, shows up with 20% frequency, while M2 appears with 80% frequency. This reinforces my earlier point that a eugenics program would increase genetic diversity.

 

The last time you and I had a discussion about eugenics, you brought up regression toward the mean. The article had this to say about that subject:

Hence we can characterize regression to the mean as a consequence of error of measurement; in our case here simply as error of classification. In pure homozygote genetic crosses, and not considering the effects of minor genes, there should be no regression to the mean.

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the article.

815844[/snapback]

 

Because you missed the part where they never directly measured anything resembling intelligence in any sample (their data was parental occupations and surveys about "What do you want to be when you grow up?", which as far as I know is NOT a measurement of intelligence, or anything else for that matter). And the part where they never case-controlled anything for outside influences ("Little Heinrich wants to be a doctor, just like daddy...must be genetic, they must both be geniuses." ) And the part where they said - and I quote -

 

Let us assume, that all the probands and the professional group to which 92% of the probands belong would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1 (hence outfitted with the genotype M1M1)...blah blah blah

 

"Let us ASSUME..." If you assume two alleles are responsible for intelligence, then the hypothesis explains their observed results...as long as Mendel's theories are an accurate representation of inheritance, and that intelligence correlates directly with your choice of profession (not even job performance, but job choice), and assume that there's no meaningful correlation between environment and job choice. And even then, it's an assumption. A thought experiment, basically. A valuable one, to be sure...but I suspect if the author knew anyone was taking it literally as the basis for a proposed eugenics program, he'd throw a fit.

 

And you apparently also missed the part where it mentions that, despite the rigorous segregation of economic strata inherent in the traditional Indian caste system, you do NOT see the same stratification of intelligence. The caste system is about as perfect an example of your eugenics program as you're ever likely to find, and in 1200 years it hasn't produced the effects you predict.

 

And you also missed the part where isolated cultures (Mongols, American Indians) show no discernable difference in intelligence. Even if the frequency of the "smart" allele were off by 1%, it would cause a statistically notable difference.

 

And you also missed the part where the author mentions the well-known research demonstrating that first borns are smarter (literally, "overrepresented in studies of giftedness" in the article). Hell, there's your eugenics program right there. Forbid everyone to have a second child. But I defy you to explain that with a two allele genetic theory...as the paper you linked to says, it can't be explained like that.

 

And you also missed the part that said "Any hierarchical society can only tolerate a very small percentage of high IQ individuals in relatively humble social positions, because such individuals represent always, in view of the limited number of leading positions, a potential threat to the ruling elite." In other words, your eugenics program carries the seeds of its own failure in destabilizing society, which would ultimately remove the very social conventions that such a eugenics program would require anyway.

 

 

But other than that...I still don't think you understood the article.

[Wacka]

That's your best comeback?   

815809[/snapback]

 

He's not an expert on comebacks!

[Orton's Arm]

Because you missed the part where they never directly measured anything resembling intelligence in any sample (their data was parental occupations and surveys about "What do you want to be when you grow up?", which as far as I know is NOT a measurement of intelligence, or anything else for that matter).

It appears you missed the part of the article which had this to say:

From 1963 to 1971 about 2,800,000 East German school children participated in nine nation-wide mathematical competitions (Engel, Pirl and Titze, 1971). In the first stage of the selection process, repeated each year in each school, nearly all mentally normal students of an age between 10 and 18 years took part.

 

The second and third stages were organized at district and county levels, respectively. The fourth stage, a two-day paper-and-pencil-examination under close supervision and restricted to an age between 15 and 18 years and to some younger students who had already excelled the necessary cut-off score, was reached by the 1329 most successful participants of the third stage at least once, by many of them several times. In terms of psychometry this selection process fulfilled the requirements of a standardized school achievement test. This is important to the argument of this paper as in East Germany IQ testing was officially forbidden (compare for background information Weiss, 1991) and for that reason it was quite impossible to administer IQ tests to the probands and their relatives.

For the purposes of this study, a "gifted child" was defined as one of the 1329 people who did exceptionally well on the standardized math test. While the author admits this definition is narrow (not all gifted children are necessarily good at math), he feels that all children who are very good at math are gifted. He presents evidence with which to back up this conclusion. The I.Q.s of parents were estimated by occupational, educational, and other data obtained from questionnaires. Weiss acknowledges that his system of measuring parents' I.Q. is imperfect, and points out that this imperfection will lead to the appearance of a lower correlation between parent/child I.Q.s than is actually the case. But even with some of the correlation being masked by measurement error, you still have the very striking results I mentioned from table 2.

 

And the part where they said - and I quote -

"Let us ASSUME..."  If you assume two alleles are responsible for intelligence, then the hypothesis explains their observed results...as long as Mendel's theories are an accurate representation of inheritance, and that intelligence correlates directly with your choice of profession (not even job performance, but job choice), and assume that there's no meaningful correlation between environment and job choice.  And even then, it's an assumption.  A thought experiment, basically.  A valuable one, to be sure...but I suspect if the author knew anyone was taking it literally as the basis for a proposed eugenics program, he'd throw a fit.

If you have a specific objection to Mendel's theories that's relevant to this discussion, I encourage you to present it. Or perhaps you have in mind an alternative genetic theory; one which would undermine the basis for a eugenics program. If so, please present that.

 

What makes the study interesting is that it's based on data from East Germany. While I detest Soviet rule in general, one of the things they did well was to wipe out inequalities of opportunity based on economic caste. In the U.S., for instance, admission to schools such as Harvard is largely based on whether your parents are graduates (read: privilege). Given the equalization of opportunity that occurred in Germany due to the devastation of WWII and the Soviet occupation, it's reasonable to conclude that choice of occupation is strongly associated with intelligence level.

And you apparently also missed the part where it mentions that, despite the rigorous segregation of economic strata inherent in the traditional Indian caste system, you do NOT see the same stratification of intelligence.  The caste system is about as perfect an example of your eugenics program as you're ever likely to find, and in 1200 years it hasn't produced the effects you predict.

The origins of the Indian caste system have been lost in the mists of time. The Puranas describes Lord Brahma creating some humans from his mouth, others from his arms, others from his abdomen, and still others from his feet. These people became grouped into different castes. While the origins of the caste system are murky at best, it is clear that today caste is a fixed concept. No matter how smart you are, you can't move up to a higher caste. Nor is there an effort to push less intelligent people into lower castes.

 

According to Weiss, the reason an intelligence-based caste system has not appeared is because, "A broad middle-class, marrying up and down and among themselves, connects the social extremes."

And you also missed the part where isolated cultures (Mongols, American Indians) show no discernable difference in intelligence.  Even if the frequency of the "smart" allele were off by 1%, it would cause a statistically notable difference.

Weiss merely discussed I.Q. similiarities between Caucasoids in Europe and America, and Mogoloids in East Asia. He didn't mention American Indians. His explanation for why East Asian Mogoloid I.Q.s and Caucasoid I.Q.s are similar is a reasonable one, and is consistent with his theory that I.Q. is largely determined by the M1/M2 alleles.

And you also missed the part where the author mentions the well-known research demonstrating that first borns are smarter (literally, "overrepresented in studies of giftedness" in the article).  Hell, there's your eugenics program right there.  Forbid everyone to have a second child.  But I defy you to explain that with a two allele genetic theory...as the paper you linked to says, it can't be explained like that.

If 40% - 80% of a person's intelligence is determined by genetics, that still leaves a substantial percentage to be explained by the environment.

And you also missed the part that said "Any hierarchical society can only tolerate a very small percentage of high IQ individuals in relatively humble social positions, because such individuals represent always, in view of the limited number of leading positions, a potential threat to the ruling elite."  In other words, your eugenics program carries the seeds of its own failure in destabilizing society, which would ultimately remove the very social conventions that such a eugenics program would require anyway.

Let's think about this. One ruling elite might feel compelled to surpress the intellectual and genetic potential of the people, because the elite sees these things as a threat. Another ruling elite might decide to do what it can to enhance such potential. In the long term, and all else being equal, the nation led by the second ruling elite will achieve far greater things than the nation led by the first. A ruling elite should not be allowed to undertake actions helpful to itself, but deeply harmful to the nation as a whole.

 

In any case, as we make the transition to a more technologically-oriented, information-based economy, the need for smart people will increase.

[Bungee Jumper]

What makes the study interesting is that it's based on data from East Germany. While I detest Soviet rule in general, one of the things they did well was to wipe out inequalities of opportunity based on economic caste. In the U.S., for instance, admission to schools such as Harvard is largely based on whether your parents are graduates (read: privilege). Given the equalization of opportunity that occurred in Germany due to the devastation of WWII and the Soviet occupation, it's reasonable to conclude that choice of occupation is strongly associated with intelligence level.

816001[/snapback]

 

 

Are you high? Is there anything you're not totally ignorant on? "Equal opportunity" in East Germany...

[Orton's Arm]

 

Are you high?  Is there anything you're not totally ignorant on?  "Equal opportunity" in East Germany... 

816096[/snapback]

In pre-WWI Germany, your economic opportunities were largely determined by whether you were born into Germany's aristocracy; or into some other wealthy group. The Soviets made it a point to avoid showing favoritism toward aristocrats or others born into high economic status. Career choice is a better indicator of intelligence in East Germany than it would have been in old Imperial Germany. I'm not trying to argue that a state-run system like East Germany's had any Bill Gates stories.

[Ramius]

It appears you missed the part of the article which had this to say:

 

If you have a specific objection to Mendel's theories that's relevant to this discussion, I encourage you to present it. Or perhaps you have in mind an alternative genetic theory; one which would undermine the basis for a eugenics program. If so, please present that.

 

What makes the study interesting is that it's based on data from East Germany. While I detest Soviet rule in general, one of the things they did well was to wipe out inequalities of opportunity based on economic caste. In the U.S., for instance, admission to schools such as Harvard is largely based on whether your parents are graduates (read: privilege). Given the equalization of opportunity that occurred in Germany due to the devastation of WWII and the Soviet occupation, it's reasonable to conclude that choice of occupation is strongly associated with intelligence level.

 

Weiss merely discussed I.Q. similiarities between Caucasoids in Europe and America, and Mogoloids in East Asia. He didn't mention American Indians. His explanation for why East Asian Mogoloid I.Q.s and Caucasoid I.Q.s are similar is a reasonable one, and is consistent with his theory that I.Q. is largely determined by the M1/M2 alleles.

 

Let's think about this. One ruling elite might feel compelled to surpress the intellectual and genetic potential of the people, because the elite sees these things as a threat. Another ruling elite might decide to do what it can to enhance such potential. In the long term, and all else being equal, the nation led by the second ruling elite will achieve far greater things than the nation led by the first. A ruling elite should not be allowed to undertake actions helpful to itself, but deeply harmful to the nation as a whole.

 

In any case, as we make the transition to a more technologically-oriented, information-based economy, the need for smart people will increase.

816001[/snapback]

 

Your ignorance increases with every single post. So far in this thread, you have shown:

 

1. No understanding of simple mathematical understanding of such things as correlation

 

2. No understanding of the basic concepts of genetics and how they apply to the real world

 

3. No understanding that the real world doesnt operate strictly on mendelian genetics, ESPECIALLY when concerning something as complex as intelligence

 

4. No basic reading comprehension

 

5. No understanding that there is a HUGE difference between ASSUMING something and drawing a conclusion from your assumptions and actually conducting a scientifically sound experiment that produces data and forming a conclusion from that

 

6. No signs of any basic level of intelligence. You are advocating a program in which you would be the first casuality. If you want a eugenics program to be implemented, set an example and get a vasectomy.

[Orton's Arm]

Your ignorance increases with every single post.

Earlier, I addressed the following remark to you:

please [illustrate] the scientific basis of whatever objections you come up with. If you continue to restrict yourself to fact-free personal invective, I will assume it's because you're incapable of defending your point in any other way.

Since I wrote that, you've made zero attempt to communicate a scientific basis for any of your objections, yet have indulged in plenty of personal invective.

[meazza]

Your ignorance increases with every single post. So far in this thread, you have shown:

 

1. No understanding of simple mathematical understanding of such things as correlation

 

2. No understanding of the basic concepts of genetics and how they apply to the real world

 

3. No understanding that the real world doesnt operate strictly on mendelian genetics, ESPECIALLY when concerning something as complex as intelligence

 

4. No basic reading comprehension

 

5. No understanding that there is a HUGE difference between ASSUMING something and drawing a conclusion from your assumptions and actually conducting a scientifically sound experiment that produces data and forming a conclusion from that

 

6. No signs of any basic level of intelligence. You are advocating a program in which you would be the first casuality. If you want a eugenics program to be implemented, set an example and get a vasectomy.

816144[/snapback]

[Bungee Jumper]

In pre-WWI Germany, your economic opportunities were largely determined by whether you were born into Germany's aristocracy; or into some other wealthy group. The Soviets made it a point to avoid showing favoritism toward aristocrats or others born into high economic status.  Career choice is a better indicator of intelligence in East Germany than it would have been in old Imperial Germany. I'm not trying to argue that a state-run system like East Germany's had any Bill Gates stories.

816125[/snapback]

 

Yeah, because the old Soviet socialist system didn't have an aristorcracy. It was all about merit.

 

Jesus Christ, you're an idiot.

[Orton's Arm]

Yeah, because the old Soviet socialist system didn't have an aristorcracy.  It was all about merit. 

 

Jesus Christ, you're an idiot.

816172[/snapback]

If you're trying to say that the Soviets did favors for inner party members and their kids, you'd be right. But if you're saying that the ranks of East German engineers and scientists consisted mostly of stupid party members, you'd be wrong. The latter point is far more relevant to the interpretation of the Weiss data than the former.