Orton's Arm 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. 808648[/snapback] I certainly don't like the tone of your last paragraph. I don't see why you've chosen to make light of the fact that the day will come when there won't be enough food to feed the Third World's rapidly expanding population. I will, however, respond to your point about a slippery slope. A slippery slope argument can be used to disprove just about everything. Once you give the government power to arrest criminals, how long will it be before it starts arresting anyone it feels like? In general, I don't put much stock in slippery slope arguments. Government programs and policies already affect people's reproductive choices, and these policies are negatively impacting the gene pool. I'm simply asking for government programs to have a positive influence on the gene pool, instead of a negative one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm 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] It's this form of population control I'm hoping to avoid. For one thing, it's inhumane. For another, it's not working: the Third World's population is rapidly expanding despite natural disasters and diseases. And thirdly, it's not a particularly powerful method of natural selection. The tsunami that recently hit parts of Asia was fairly random in whom it killed. Fourth, because the Third World's population is expanding so quickly, people need more farmland than they used to. It's really tough to tell someone to leave the rainforest alone when he needs to either cut some of it down, or watch his family starve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 In general, I don't put much stock in slippery slope arguments. 809215[/snapback] Why would you? Basing your opinions on a complete misunderstanding of statistics is so much more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Why would you? Basing your opinions on a complete misunderstanding of statistics is so much more effective. 809234[/snapback] Perhaps he should stick to quarterback analysis, on which he has more understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Perhaps he should stick to quarterback analysis, on which he has more understanding. 809271[/snapback] Maybe we should give tax incentives to good quarterbacks to have more children... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Maybe we should give tax incentives to good quarterbacks to have more children... 809272[/snapback] I don't know. He'll probably come up with 100% correlation that all quarterbacks have children with some kind of ailments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I don't know. He'll probably come up with 100% correlation that all quarterbacks have children with some kind of ailments. 809276[/snapback] If a QB has more than one child with some kind of ailment, would it be a 200% correlation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 If a QB has more than one child with some kind of ailment, would it be a 200% correlation? 809285[/snapback] Only if the quarterback only had 2 children. I think if he has 3 kids it becomes a 300% correlation, with a 49% correlation between the kids assuming they all have the same mother. I'm not sure what happens when they have different mothers. That must be where the 28% of environmental factors CAUSE the lack of correlation. Them #'s are tricky buggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 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? 808776[/snapback] My statistics is a little rusty, I was feeling a little sleepy, and, well, I described r^2 when I should have been describing r. In any case, I found the following in a stats book: The sample correlation coefficient [r] is useful as a descriptive measure of the strength of linear association in a sample. The book also states that an r value of 0 implies no linear relationship, and an r value of -1 implies "a perfect negative linear association." In the case of identical twins raised apart, we're looking at an r value of over 0.7, implying a very strong positive relationship. I should think this alone would be enough answer to your second question. If two genetically identical people, raised apart, generally have strongly correlated levels of intelligence, it's a pretty strong signal intelligence is primarily driven by genetics. But if that's not enough to satisfy you, I offer this quote from page 178 of The g factor: By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic. In other words, to the extent that there is a correlation between the IQs of genetically related postpubertal family members, the correlation is entirely due to genetic factors; the environmental contribution to the familial correlations is nil. For additional information about the heritability of intelligence, I suggest reading the abstract paragraph of the following link: http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000085/#html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 My statistics is a little rusty, I was feeling a little sleepy, and, well, I described r^2 when I should have been describing r. In any case, I found the following in a stats book:The book also states that an r value of 0 implies no linear relationship, and an r value of -1 implies "a perfect negative linear association." In the case of identical twins raised apart, we're looking at an r value of over 0.7, implying a very strong positive relationship. I should think this alone would be enough answer to your second question. If two genetically identical people, raised apart, generally have strongly correlated levels of intelligence, it's a pretty strong signal intelligence is primarily driven by genetics. But if that's not enough to satisfy you, I offer this quote from page 178 of The g factor: By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic. In other words, to the extent that there is a correlation between the IQs of genetically related postpubertal family members, the correlation is entirely due to genetic factors; the environmental contribution to the familial correlations is nil. For additional information about the heritability of intelligence, I suggest reading the abstract paragraph of the following link: http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000085/#html 809734[/snapback] Not only did you not answer my second question, you obviously don't even understand it. The question is: how is it possibly valid to use a sibling-sibling correlation to prove a causal parent-child relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 For additional information about the heritability of intelligence, I suggest reading the abstract paragraph of the following link: http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000085/#html Not only did you not answer my second question, you obviously don't even understand it. The question is: how is it possibly valid to use a sibling-sibling correlation to prove a causal parent-child relationship? 809905[/snapback] Duh! its right there. Since a child gets only half its genetic information from its mother, thats obviously the source of the .5 (or .49) correlation in intelligence. You need to learn statistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Duh! its right there. Since a child gets only half its genetic information from its mother, thats obviously the source of the .5 (or .49) correlation in intelligence. You need to learn statistics 810100[/snapback] I'm setting up a Monte Carlo simulation right now. Take a population of 10k (to start, if it runs well I'll up it to 50K or 100k) with a normal distribution of "intelligence", pick out 2000 random pairs and "breed" them, the first child according to a yet-to-be-defined correlation between parent and child (I'll try 1, .5, 0, -.5, and -1 in different runs), and four more according to a .5 correlation with the first child. That'll give me a new population of 10k...and then I'll repeat. We'll see how the distribution evolves. Then I'll give the "smart" members of the population preferential treatment (any pair with a mean "intelligence" over 100 gets 6 children, below 100 gets 4), and we'll see how THAT distribution evolves. $20 says there's little discernable difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Back on topic: Err America in the liberal fortress of San Francisco is in 37th place! Out of every 1000 people listening to the radio, SIX are listening to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Back on topic: Err America in the liberal fortress of San Francisco is in 37th place! Out of every 1000 people listening to the radio, SIX are listening to them! 810197[/snapback] They didn't have a good scheme for the format they were using. I listened to it a handfull of times, hated it, and quickly switched back to either NPR or sports radio. The listeners they were/are targetting are more inclined to stay up-to-speed using the web, ie liberal blogs, news blogs, messageboards, campaign sites, flashmobs, youtube, podcasts. Additionally, their programming was dull and lacked any creativity. There are probably at least half-a-dozen liberal-leaning posters on TSW that could have put together a better, more exciting format. It wasn't the message that missed, as we are seeing a fair number of polls suggest that many americans are frustrated with Bush and the GOP. It was their management was truly abyssmal. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to see them dissappear. They weren't on my radar anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 They didn't have a good scheme for the format they were using. I listened to it a handfull of times, hated it, and quickly switched back to either NPR or sports radio. The listeners they were/are targetting are more inclined to stay up-to-speed using the web, ie liberal blogs, news blogs, messageboards, campaign sites, flashmobs, youtube, podcasts. Additionally, their programming was dull and lacked any creativity. There are probably at least half-a-dozen liberal-leaning posters on TSW that could have put together a better, more exciting format. It wasn't the message that missed, as we are seeing a fair number of polls suggest that many americans are frustrated with Bush and the GOP. It was their management was truly abyssmal. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to see them dissappear. They weren't on my radar anyway. 810213[/snapback] I think it'll bother Wacka more than you, considering he's losing the opportunity to gloat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Not only did you not answer my second question, you obviously don't even understand it. The question is: how is it possibly valid to use a sibling-sibling correlation to prove a causal parent-child relationship? 809905[/snapback] I clearly understood your question, and I felt I provided a sufficient answer. Where do you suppose identical twins got their genetics from, if not (partially) from their biological mother? In any case, there is widespread agreement that intelligence is largely inherited: Heritability estimates [for intelligence] range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to l), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin. The above statement was signed by 52 highly qualified people. It represents the voice of mainstram science; a voice which has gotten lost in the circus atmosphere of this thread. (By the way, I'm not blaming you at all for that circus atmosphere. The Monte Carlo simulation you're putting together is an adequate apology for far more flippant remarks than any I've seen you make here. It took guts to announce in advance what you thought your results will be like, though I feel this will turn out to be that 1% of the time when your confidence is misplaced.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I clearly understood your question, and I felt I provided a sufficient answer. Where do you suppose identical twins got their genetics from, if not (partially) from their biological mother? In any case, there is widespread agreement that intelligence is largely inherited: 810623[/snapback] But how does parental intelligence correlate with child intelligence? It's a really simple question, and you're not answering it. No, you're answer isn't an answer, because there is a striking difference between a correlation within a generation and a correlation across generations. The sibling correlation does not make intelligence inheritable, but you can't quote an actual parent-child correlation, so you're just assuming they mean the same thing. And you're wrong, because the sibling correlation (as measured by twin studies) only measures that component of intelligence which can be reasonably presumed to be genetic, it does NOT measure how the undefined inherited "intelligence" traits pass from generation to generation. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. And even when you correct that fatal flaw...all the studies (the one you're mainly referring to is Bouchard and McGue, 1981) suffer from certain notable insufficiencies, chief among which is measuring the variance of an abstract measurement assigned a value that's inferred rather than deduced (namely: intelligence). And even if you managed to correct THAT, economic success, using the same methodology but much more concrete measurables (i.e. money) only very weakly correlates with intelligence, it correlates most strongly by far (>80%) with emotional maturity. So again, you're wrong...because preferentially breeding the upper economic strata in favor of welfare roles will not increase overall intelligence, because intelligence does not correlate with economic success, according to the same studies you mistakenly believe support your view. In fact, the only publication I could find that agrees with you in any way was on David Duke's web site...which should tell you something. And you don't even know what "Heritability estimates [for intelligence] range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1)" means, do you? Hint: it's different from "inheritability". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 And even if you managed to correct THAT, economic success, using the same methodology but much more concrete measurables (i.e. money) only very weakly correlates with intelligence, it correlates most strongly by far (>80%) with emotional maturity. You appear to be understating the correlation between intelligence and economic success. The below quote is from an article published in the Scientific American: But general mental ability also predicts job performance, and in more complex jobs it does so better than any other single personal trait, including education and experience. From the following: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/repri...gencefactor.pdf Page 4 of that same article addresses the parent/child intelligence correlation issue you've raised: Research has shown that although shared environments do have a modest influence on IQ in childhood, their effects dissipate by adolescence. The IQs of adopted children, for example, lose all resemblance to those of their adoptive family members and become more like the IQs of the biological parents they have never known. In fact, the only publication I could find that agrees with you in any way was on David Duke's web site...which should tell you something. It does tell me a little something about the type of website to which you're drawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 You appear to be understating the correlation between intelligence and economic success. The below quote is from an article published in the Scientific American: 810785[/snapback] Show me the research paper that says that. Not the popular magazine article, but the research. Because I've checked the research. I read about a half-dozen papers last night. Not one makes that claim. And that SciAm article is half-assed anyway. "IQ is not as accurate as 'g'"...and then spend the rest of the article discussing the inaccurate measure as it relates to sociology. And you think that's an adequate foundation for a breeding program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 You appear to be understating the correlation between intelligence and economic success. The below quote is from an article published in the Scientific American: 810785[/snapback] Right, so the article says that "mental ability" is a better predictor of job performance than eductaion, yet you cite Harvard grads as cause celebre in your blitzkrieg. I'm also assuming that you're assigning a 100% correlation between whatever SCI Am is defining as "mental ability" and whatever you deem "intelligence" to be. Now that you have done a splendid job of not answering bungee's question, how about not answering how you would go about casting America's Stupidest Woman? ™ © Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts