Chilly Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I just got done watching SVU, and the rapist was going on and on.... "Don't you all see? Birth defects and sub average intelligence are common place now in America. Its just accepted, and it shouldn't be. Why does society just accept mediocrity? The right sperm with the right eggs should be able to change the world. We don't have to settle for mediocrity." Was that you HA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 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. 808421[/snapback] Correlation coefficients aren't as tricky a thing as they sound like. A correlation coefficient of 0.49 means that a given X variable explains about half the observed variation in your Y variable. Let me translate this into English. Suppose you have a population of children, who are in grades 5 - 8. Say you wanted to predict the height of these children. The first prediction you could make is this: the next child you come across will be of average height for the group. But there will be variation: one child might be three inches taller than average; another four inches shorter. You respond by saying, "Tell me the child's age in days, and then let me predict his or her height." You notice that whereas before your prediction was off by an average of 4 inches, now it's only off by an average of 2 inches. In this hypothetical example, age explains half the observed variation in height. This is the same thing as saying there's a correlation coefficient of about 0.5 between age and height. I've heard of two possible explanations of why people's intelligence levels vary: nature and nurture. Suppose nurture was usually a strong factor in determining why one person is smarter than another. If two unrelated children were raised in the same house, with the same parents reading to them, going to the same schools, living in the same neighborhood, enjoying the same level of wealth, you'd expect to see a strong correlation between their two levels of intelligence. That is, if you knew child A was smart, it would be a pretty clear sign that he or she grew up in a good environment. In this hypothetical example, another child who grew up in the same good environment--in the same house for crying out loud--should have a much better chance of being smart than a child selected at random. But the study I cited shows this isn't the case: by adulthood, there's no correlation between the intelligence levels of unrelated children who grew up in the same household. The study was set up in such a way as to detect just about any common environmentally-based variation in intelligence levels. The fact it detected no correlation is a very strong piece of evidence that the usual differences in environment aren't big enough to seriously impact intelligence levels. Well, you might be tempted to ask, if the environment explains none of the variation in intelligence levels, why then is the correlation between siblings only 0.49? Why does it only explain about 49% of the variation, instead of 100%? Were the siblings identical twins, we would in fact expect a much higher level of correlation. A study by Toga and Thompson, done in 2005, showed that idential twins raised in separate environments have intelligence levels corrrelated at 0.72. Other studies have demonstrated even higher correlations. Typically, the effect of environmental influences fade as children get older; so siblings raised apart will have a stronger correlation at the age of 20 than at the age of 10. In any case, let's take that 0.72 correlation as a starting point. Based on that, environment would seem to explain 28% of the observed variation in intelligence levels. Based on the study of unrelated children raised together, environment would seem to explain 0% of variation in intelligence. But whether environment explains as little as 0% of intellectual variation, or as much as 28%, the fact of the matter remains that genetics clearly determine the lion's share. This is why a eugenics program has a much stronger potential to benefit a nation than an improved education system could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Aren't wealthy children more likely to be college graduates? Isn't money an easier and less-controversial metric to measure than IQ? Why not just have a eugenics program based on wealth? Encourage the wealthy to have more kids and discourage the poor? While we're at it, I think they've identified several genes that are linked to cancer and mental illness. Let's encourage the people with those genes not to breed. This is no straw man argument HA. This is your slippery slope. I don't feel like refuting your main point because it so-warps the role of government and liberty that it needs no more mocking than it already received. It seems to me that the best solution to third world overpopulation is education. Until those dumb people stop banging each other and learn to care for themselves within their means, they will keep dying. The newer aid programs that ship knowledge instead of food are helping those countries learn to fend for their dumb selves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Life will take care of its own. Why do you think there are so many natural disasters, so many diseases? Population control. Maybe Darwin wasn't so dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Life will take care of its own.Why do you think there are so many natural disasters, so many diseases? Population control. Maybe Darwin wasn't so dumb. 808653[/snapback] You forgot telephone poles, dogs and guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 You forgot telephone poles, dogs and guns. 808671[/snapback] What the hell are you talking about, Papa Smurf? When attempting to make a joke, make sure it fits the context of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 What the hell are you talking about, Papa Smurf?When attempting to make a joke, make sure it fits the context of the thread. 808681[/snapback] Population control, darwinism, etc... Are you that much of an idiot or is your stupidity an act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Population control, darwinism, etc... Are you that much of an idiot or is your stupidity an act? 808683[/snapback] Is that more ridiculous than believing in a man who died and resurrected? Which is more plausible? Natural selection, and evolution, or a spirit in the sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I don't feel like refuting your main point because it so-warps the role of government and liberty that it needs no more mocking than it already received. 808648[/snapback] I disagree with this. Supersize it, baby. HA did advocate encouraging the wealthy to breed and the poor to die, by not answering how he would discern "intelligence" among the population. It sure would be neat for the stupid people to go away. Since HA wants women out of the productive work force, there's really no reason for them to go beyond a 6th grade education. Thus, wealth is a great selection criteria for his $100 tube tying program. If you make over $200K, lend us your eggs. Melinda Gates, step right up for your $100 check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I disagree with this. Supersize it, baby. HA did advocate encouraging the wealthy to breed and the poor to die, by not answering how he would discern "intelligence" among the population. It sure would be neat for the stupid people to go away. Since HA wants women out of the productive work force, there's really no reason for them to go beyond a 6th grade education. Thus, wealth is a great selection criteria for his $100 tube tying program. If you make over $200K, lend us your eggs. Melinda Gates, step right up for your $100 check. 808723[/snapback] Hey, France just implemented this. Although it is $960 per egg per month until the kids are 18. During a year-long leave after the birth of the third child, mothers will receive $960 a month from the government, twice the allowance for the second child. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101701652.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Correlation coefficients aren't as tricky a thing as they sound like. A correlation coefficient of 0.49 means that a given X variable explains about half the observed variation in your Y variable. Let me translate this into English. Suppose you have a population of children, who are in grades 5 - 8. Say you wanted to predict the height of these children. The first prediction you could make is this: the next child you come across will be of average height for the group. But there will be variation: one child might be three inches taller than average; another four inches shorter. You respond by saying, "Tell me the child's age in days, and then let me predict his or her height." You notice that whereas before your prediction was off by an average of 4 inches, now it's only off by an average of 2 inches. In this hypothetical example, age explains half the observed variation in height. This is the same thing as saying there's a correlation coefficient of about 0.5 between age and height. I've heard of two possible explanations of why people's intelligence levels vary: nature and nurture. Suppose nurture was usually a strong factor in determining why one person is smarter than another. If two unrelated children were raised in the same house, with the same parents reading to them, going to the same schools, living in the same neighborhood, enjoying the same level of wealth, you'd expect to see a strong correlation between their two levels of intelligence. That is, if you knew child A was smart, it would be a pretty clear sign that he or she grew up in a good environment. In this hypothetical example, another child who grew up in the same good environment--in the same house for crying out loud--should have a much better chance of being smart than a child selected at random. But the study I cited shows this isn't the case: by adulthood, there's no correlation between the intelligence levels of unrelated children who grew up in the same household. The study was set up in such a way as to detect just about any common environmentally-based variation in intelligence levels. The fact it detected no correlation is a very strong piece of evidence that the usual differences in environment aren't big enough to seriously impact intelligence levels. Well, you might be tempted to ask, if the environment explains none of the variation in intelligence levels, why then is the correlation between siblings only 0.49? Why does it only explain about 49% of the variation, instead of 100%? Were the siblings identical twins, we would in fact expect a much higher level of correlation. A study by Toga and Thompson, done in 2005, showed that idential twins raised in separate environments have intelligence levels corrrelated at 0.72. Other studies have demonstrated even higher correlations. Typically, the effect of environmental influences fade as children get older; so siblings raised apart will have a stronger correlation at the age of 20 than at the age of 10. In any case, let's take that 0.72 correlation as a starting point. Based on that, environment would seem to explain 28% of the observed variation in intelligence levels. Based on the study of unrelated children raised together, environment would seem to explain 0% of variation in intelligence. But whether environment explains as little as 0% of intellectual variation, or as much as 28%, the fact of the matter remains that genetics clearly determine the lion's share. This is why a eugenics program has a much stronger potential to benefit a nation than an improved education system could. 808619[/snapback] So you don't know what a correlation coeffecient is. Your understanding is extraordinarily wrong. And you still didn't answer my second question: how do you (you, specifically. The rest of the world knows better) get from a correlation between siblings to a correlation between parent and child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 And you still didn't answer my second question: how do you (you, specifically. The rest of the world knows better) get from a correlation between siblings to a correlation between parent and child? 808776[/snapback] He'll get to it after he answers how he will pick the contestants for America's Stupidest Woman ™ ©. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Correlation coefficients aren't as tricky a thing as they sound like. 808619[/snapback] Wow, you really have no clue what correlation means. Also, like in your usual pointless rants, you forget that correlation != causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I just got done watching SVU, and the rapist was going on and on.... "Don't you all see? Birth defects and sub average intelligence are common place now in America. Its just accepted, and it shouldn't be. Why does society just accept mediocrity? The right sperm with the right eggs should be able to change the world. We don't have to settle for mediocrity." Was that you HA? 808502[/snapback] Why would you, or anyone in the world, watch any of the Law & Order shows? They are all unspeakably terrible. The older L&O are decent but the new ones are awful. Now they always work in a stupid, heavy-handed message (usually about how bad evangelicals or conservatives are). Last week I saw the first couple minutes of the show and they completely inverted reality by having the crime be two jingoistic Americans videotaping themselves beheading a helpless Muslim (while one screamed "GOD BLESS AMERICA!"). It's sad. I used to like that show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Since HA wants women out of the productive work force, there's really no reason for them to go beyond a 6th grade education. 808723[/snapback] I smell a cost-savings baby! If you're dumb in 6th grade, no more school! A sixth grader is a great asset in a coal mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Why would you, or anyone in the world, watch any of the Law & Order shows? They are all unspeakably terrible. I find them to be quite fun, and always gonna have a good story and twist. My whole apt likes to watch the shows on tues/friday, and we make bets on whodunnit, 'tis good tv and an enjoyable way to relax. The older L&O are decent but the new ones are awful. Now they always work in a stupid, heavy-handed message (usually about how bad evangelicals or conservatives are). Last week I saw the first couple minutes of the show and they completely inverted reality by having the crime be two jingoistic Americans videotaping themselves beheading a helpless Muslim (while one screamed "GOD BLESS AMERICA!"). It's sad. I used to like that show. 808843[/snapback] Um, not really. As you should know with L&O, the beginning is nothing like what actually happened. Those "jingoistic Americans" turned out to be muslim extremists making the crime look like a coverup by posing as an American terrorist cell. Yeah, this episode did have a message (the divide within the muslim community), but not all of the new L&Os do. In fact, most of them aren't like that. Last nights CI and SVU both weren't like that at all. The weeks before last Friday's didn't include a message either. Some of the episodes are like that, but not all are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Is that more ridiculous than believing in a man who died and resurrected? Which is more plausible? Natural selection, and evolution, or a spirit in the sky? 808697[/snapback] Norman Greenbaum already answered this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 When attempting to make a joke, make sure it fits the context of the thread. 808681[/snapback] Ed...your car is gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Ed...your car is gay. 809005[/snapback] Are facts considered to be a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Are facts considered to be a joke? 809016[/snapback] Take a wild guess, Frodo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts