Orton's Arm Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 In other words: welfare should be based on the intelligence of the recipient, not economic need. How is that not providing financial incentive to eugenically create a master race? 808072[/snapback] If you base childbearing incentives on intelligence, you're helping the U.S. fill its economic need for a smarter workforce. You seem to feel that a national preference for a high level of intelligence is the same as creating a master race. Does this apply on a more local level too? Is Stanford, for example, trying to create a master race by accepting intelligent applicants while rejecting the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 If you base childbearing incentives on intelligence, you're helping the U.S. fill its economic need for a smarter workforce. You seem to feel that a national preference for a high level of intelligence is the same as creating a master race. Does this apply on a more local level too? Is Stanford, for example, trying to create a master race by accepting intelligent applicants while rejecting the others? 808111[/snapback] Does Stanford base their acceptance on intelligence? (Hint: no. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Does Stanford base their acceptance on intelligence? (Hint: no. ) 808124[/snapback] They base their acceptance on things which result from intelligence. I find it very difficult to believe someone with an I.Q. of 70 could write a Stanford quality admissions essay, or could score well enough on the SAT to get into Stanford. So they're doing a fairly effective job of weeding out people of average or below average intelligence. Maybe some of the participants in this thread could help Stanford make its admissions process better. The Stanford board of trustees would open a letter, courtesy of the Stadium Wall. They'd find references to entrenching tools, blow-up dolls, master races, and (appropriately) sliced baloney. These comments would be about as useful for setting Stanford admissions policy as they are for setting U.S. policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I went back through this thread, and you've made 11 separate misinterpretations of what I'm proposing. I'll correct the above misinterpretation, but the number of times I'm willing to do this is limited. What I'm proposing is to provide financial incentives for smart women to have more kids, while also providing incentives for less intelligent women to have fewer children. Economic status doesn't matter to me. I don't care if a Mensa member is on welfare or lives in Beverly Hills; she should have a financial incentive to have children. The problem I have with misguided liberal social policies is that, on average, the women who were encouraged to have kids were less intelligent than the average woman who was discouraged from having children. 807975[/snapback] So the single mom who busts her ass working 2 jobs as a secretary and a waitress so her kids can have a decent life and go to school shouldnt get $, because she doesnt have a high enough IQ? But we should give $ to the person who has a high IQ, thereby "smart", even though that person may be lazy as sh--? Got it, Herr Holcomb. Note: the above 2 situations were my 2 roommates from sophmore year at school. One busted his ass working hard at school, because his mom did the same for him while she was raising him. He's not the smartest person around, but he took out loans to go to school, and his work ethic (learned from his mom, someone who should have gotten her tubes ties, according to you)has gotten him a BS in Mech E, and a law degree in patent law. The other was valedictorian of his HS class, and got an almost free ride to school. what did he do? nothing. played video games and dropped out. Currently he's working at a movie theater collecting tickets, and as a security guard at a factory. Why? hes lazy as !@#$. But he's smart, so he should be encouraged to have kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 So the single mom who busts her ass working 2 jobs as a secretary and a waitress so her kids can have a decent life and go to school shouldnt get $, because she doesnt have a high enough IQ? But we should give $ to the person who has a high IQ, thereby "smart", even though that person may be lazy as sh--? Got it, Herr Holcomb. Note: the above 2 situations were my 2 roommates from sophmore year at school. One busted his ass working hard at school, because his mom did the same for him while she was raising him. He's not the smartest person around, but he took out loans to go to school, and his work ethic (learned from his mom, someone who should have gotten her tubes ties, according to you)has gotten him a BS in Mech E, and a law degree in patent law. The other was valedictorian of his HS class, and got an almost free ride to school. what did he do? nothing. played video games and dropped out. Currently he's working at a movie theater collecting tickets, and as a security guard at a factory. Why? hes lazy as !@#$. But he's smart, so he should be encouraged to have kids. 808146[/snapback] I respect your hard-working roommate. He took full advantage of the talent with which he was blessed. It's too bad your other roommate let his talent go to waste. In a perfect world, you'd be able to measure the desire inside a person. Yes you can sort of do it on an individual level, because you knew your two roommates. But I don't see a way for an institution to gain this awareness. I think it's fairly safe to assume the average smart person is neither harder working nor lazier than the average stupid person. So the eugenics program I'm suggesting would increase the average level of intelligence, without really affecting the average level of work ethic. Yes you'd like to be able to increase both things, but it's a lot easier to measure intelligence than it is to measure desire. Increasing one, while leaving the other alone, is better than nothing. In any case, all I'm offering is encouragement. Take a smart woman who stayed in school until she was nearly 30, in order to get her PhD. Maybe she's buried under a pile of debt, maybe the job prospects aren't as good as what she'd been expecting. Without a eugenics program, she might decide it was financial suicide to take on the added expense of having children. On the other hand, consider a less intelligent woman who was thinking of having kids. She knows there's a check waiting for her if she gets her tubes tied. But if children are important to her, she'll walk away from that check. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the mother of your hard-working roommate would have walked away from that check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I love it!!! Rush Limbaugh kills liberals. He really should be President. I think Rush is the smartest man in America. Obviously Americans love to sit and listen to him. No one wants to listen to liberals. That's why they are out of power. 807735[/snapback] You know, I never really thought of it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I respect your hard-working roommate. He took full advantage of the talent with which he was blessed. It's too bad your other roommate let his talent go to waste. In a perfect world, you'd be able to measure the desire inside a person. Yes you can sort of do it on an individual level, because you knew your two roommates. But I don't see a way for an institution to gain this awareness. I think it's fairly safe to assume the average smart person is neither harder working nor lazier than the average stupid person. So the eugenics program I'm suggesting would increase the average level of intelligence, without really affecting the average level of work ethic. Yes you'd like to be able to increase both things, but it's a lot easier to measure intelligence than it is to measure desire. Increasing one, while leaving the other alone, is better than nothing. In any case, all I'm offering is encouragement. Take a smart woman who stayed in school until she was nearly 30, in order to get her PhD. Maybe she's buried under a pile of debt, maybe the job prospects aren't as good as what she'd been expecting. Without a eugenics program, she might decide it was financial suicide to take on the added expense of having children. On the other hand, consider a less intelligent woman who was thinking of having kids. She knows there's a check waiting for her if she gets her tubes tied. But if children are important to her, she'll walk away from that check. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the mother of your hard-working roommate would have walked away from that check. 808169[/snapback] You know, there's a word for what you're espousing. It's called "eugenics". It was disproven about...oh, maybe seventy years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I went back through this thread, and you've made 11 separate misinterpretations of what I'm proposing. I'll correct the above misinterpretation, but the number of times I'm willing to do this is limited. What I'm proposing is to provide financial incentives for smart women to have more kids, while also providing incentives for less intelligent women to have fewer children. Economic status doesn't matter to me. I don't care if a Mensa member is on welfare or lives in Beverly Hills; she should have a financial incentive to have children. The problem I have with misguided liberal social policies is that, on average, the women who were encouraged to have kids were less intelligent than the average woman who was discouraged from having children. 807975[/snapback] Yes, you wrote that before. What I'm trying to understand is how your reach a conclusion of stupid woman = ghetto crack whore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 You know, there's a word for what you're espousing. It's called "eugenics". It was disproven about...oh, maybe seventy years ago. 808231[/snapback] Yes, it's eugenics. It was espoused by a number of leading American intellectuals. But in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials, it became socially unacceptable to advocate such policies any more. But the underlying scientific basis was still there, especially the correlation between genetics and intelligence. If anything, that evidence is even stronger now than it was back when Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University) advocated eugenics. Do the Nuremberg Trials represent a legitimate, intellectually credible refutation of eugenics? I don't believe they do. To examine the root causes of genocide, I'll mention four examples: tribally-based killings in Rwanda, the Ukrainian famine, communist China's treatment of the Tibetans, and the Eskimos' forcible expulsion of the Vikings from Greenland. These governments weren't guided by eugenic theories. On the contrary, communist China and the Soviet Union explicitly rejected, on ideological grounds, the concept that heredity could help determine a person's intellectual potential. I strongly doubt that the Eskimos or the Rwandan tribes had any particular guiding theory about the connection between genetics and intelligence. The common thread between these four genocides/ethnic cleansings is that, in each case, a given government formed hostile intentions toward the members of a specific ethnic or racial group. Nazi war crimes can be explained by this also. There's no need to reflexively reject something simply because the Nazis advocated it. Otherwise, we'd be rejecting concepts like hard work, self-sacrifice, idealism, environmentalism, the family, physical exercise, courage, and nationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Oh boy, here we go again........ Where's my bat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Yes, it's eugenics. It was espoused by a number of leading American intellectuals. But in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials, it became socially unacceptable to advocate such policies any more. But the underlying scientific basis was still there, especially the correlation between genetics and intelligence. If anything, that evidence is even stronger now than it was back when Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University) advocated eugenics. 808267[/snapback] Let's skip the absolute stupidity you followed this up with and concentrate on just one salient point: what evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Let's skip the absolute stupidity you followed this up with and concentrate on just one salient point: what evidence? 808300[/snapback] evidence schmevidence. all he has to do is bull sh-- and fake it long enough to start a war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Let's skip the absolute stupidity you followed this up with and concentrate on just one salient point: what evidence? 808300[/snapback] Hey, get in line, wrapped elastic leaper. I asked him first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Oh boy, here we go again........ Where's my bat? 808284[/snapback] Thai how did you get ahold of eryns account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Thai how did you get ahold of eryns account? 808305[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Hey, get in line, wrapped elastic leaper. I asked him first. 808304[/snapback] Well, your slow ass was defending, Crack ho's. Catch up. Anybody see Josef Mengele, anywhere? He loved crack Ho's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 What's wrong with actually working for a living? 807762[/snapback] Ever heard of sarcasm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Let's skip the absolute stupidity you followed this up with and concentrate on just one salient point: what evidence? 808300[/snapback] A fair question, but one I answered earlier. Here's the answer again: intelligence is determined by genetics:Adult IQ correlations full siblings reared together, r = +.49 full siblings reared apart, r = +.47 unrelated persons reared together (adoption), r = -.01 "By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic." - Statistics and quote from Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. P. 178 By adulthood, there's a strong correlation between the intelligence of biological siblings reared apart, but zero correlation for the intelligence of step siblings reared together. This isn't directed against you in particular, but I find it sad that so many people respond with such hostility or ridicule to something that's actually a quite reasonable, academically supported truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 A fair question, but one I answered earlier. Here's the answer again: intelligence is determined by genetics:Adult IQ correlations full siblings reared together, r = +.49 full siblings reared apart, r = +.47 unrelated persons reared together (adoption), r = -.01 "By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic." - Statistics and quote from Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. P. 178 By adulthood, there's a strong correlation between the intelligence of biological siblings reared apart, but zero correlation for the intelligence of step siblings reared together. This isn't directed against you in particular, but I find it sad that so many people respond with such hostility or ridicule to something that's actually a quite reasonable, academically supported truth. 808346[/snapback] HA, with all due respect, some things in life should be left alone, and this is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 A fair question, but one I answered earlier. Here's the answer again: intelligence is determined by genetics:Adult IQ correlations full siblings reared together, r = +.49 full siblings reared apart, r = +.47 unrelated persons reared together (adoption), r = -.01 "By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic." - Statistics and quote from Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. P. 178 By adulthood, there's a strong correlation between the intelligence of biological siblings reared apart, but zero correlation for the intelligence of step siblings reared together. This isn't directed against you in particular, but I find it sad that so many people respond with such hostility or ridicule to something that's actually a quite reasonable, academically supported truth. 808346[/snapback] 1) You obviously don't understand what a correlation coefficient of .49 actually means. 2) Do you have any evidence that actually supports your point of view? Because a correlation between siblings is very different from the correlation between parent and child that you're assuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts