Err America files Chapter 11

[Ramius]

You appear to be understating the correlation between intelligence and economic success.  The below quote is from an article published in the Scientific American:

 

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!

810785[/snapback]

 

The SciAm article to which you refer is basing itself on a closed case. (i'm an avid reader of SCiAm, so i am familiar with their format, content, etc)

 

Its saying that given a job with X complexity, someone with higher intelligence will do better at THAT SPECIFIC JOB than someone with lower intelligence. No sh--! A smarter person will do better at a task than a dumber one! What a shocking result! Nowhere does it predict or state that soneone with higher intelligence will have a better job or be better off economically.

 

Basically the study is this: You have a job where you need someone to put 10 round pegs in round holes, and 10 square pegs in square holes. All the article is saying is that while me and bungee jumper will be done with the task in roughly 15 seconds, you and VABills will take closer to an hour and a half to complete the task.

[VABills]

It does tell me a little something about the type of website to which you're drawn!

810785[/snapback]

 

The SciAm article to which you refer is basing itself on a closed case. (i'm an avid reader of SCiAm, so i am familiar with their format, content, etc)

 

Its saying that given a job with X complexity, someone with higher intelligence will do better at THAT SPECIFIC JOB than someone with lower intelligence. No sh--! A smarter person will do better at a task than a dumber one! What a shocking result! Nowhere does it predict or state that soneone with higher intelligence will have a better job or be better off economically.

 

Basically the study is this: You have a job where you need someone to put 10 round pegs in round holes, and 10 square pegs in square holes. All the article is saying is that while me and bungee jumper will be done with the task in roughly 15 seconds, you and VABills will take closer to an hour and a half to complete the task.

811135[/snapback]

 

:fyou

[GG]

The SciAm article to which you refer is basing itself on a closed case. (i'm an avid reader of SCiAm, so i am familiar with their format, content, etc)

 

Its saying that given a job with X complexity, someone with higher intelligence will do better at THAT SPECIFIC JOB than someone with lower intelligence. No sh--! A smarter person will do better at a task than a dumber one! What a shocking result! Nowhere does it predict or state that soneone with higher intelligence will have a better job or be better off economically.

 

Basically the study is this: You have a job where you need someone to put 10 round pegs in round holes, and 10 square pegs in square holes. All the article is saying is that while me and bungee jumper will be done with the task in roughly 15 seconds, you and VABills will take closer to an hour and a half to complete the task.

811135[/snapback]

 

:fyou

811144[/snapback]

 

Well.... considering that you managed to bungle the basic "reply in quotes" thingy, he may have a point.

[VABills]

:fyou

811144[/snapback]

 

Well.... considering that you managed to bungle the basic "reply in quotes" thingy, he may have a point.

811158[/snapback]

Not me. It's his message that threw the quotes off. I was too lazy to correct.

[Chilly]

Well....  considering that you managed to bungle the basic "reply in quotes" thingy, he may have a point.

Not me.  It's his message that threw the quotes off.  I was too lazy to correct.

811171[/snapback]

 

And you did it again.

[Bungee Jumper]

Not me.  It's his message that threw the quotes off.  I was too lazy to correct.

811171[/snapback]

 

Which is my point: emotional maturity (e.g. not being lazy) is a better predictor of success than intelligence.

[VABills]

Which is my point: emotional maturity (e.g. not being lazy) is a better predictor of success than intelligence. 

811223[/snapback]

And with that I agree.

[Orton's Arm]

All the article is saying is that while me and bungee jumper will be done with the task in roughly 15 seconds, you and VABills will take closer to an hour and a half to complete the task.

811135[/snapback]

Two points. Number one, it'd take me at least three hours to complete the task. Number two, I don't really see why we're talking about our sex lives.

[/dev/null]

Two points.  Number one, it'd take me at least three hours to complete the task.  Number two, I don't really see why we're talking about our sex lives. 

811591[/snapback]

 

You're comparing apples and oranges

Your sex life is masterbatory. And everyone know with Holcomb's noodle arm it takes a long time to get downfield

[Chilly]

You're comparing apples and oranges

Your sex life is masterbatory.  And everyone know with Holcomb's noodle arm it takes a long time to get downfield

811609[/snapback]

 

Friggin owned.

[Orton's Arm]

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. 

810956[/snapback]

It appears this discussion has gotten off track. My main point is that a eugenics program would significantly increase the number of smart people. There are several substantial benefits to such a program. The higher number of smart people would result in more discoveries, more quality literature, and other truly unique accomplishments. The second benefit is that the population would be smarter, and that's an end in itself. But even Ramius agrees that a smart person will tend to perform a complicated job better than a less intelligent person would, so there's another substantial benefit. I believe smart people tend to be more economically successful than less gifted people, but this isn't a major pillar of the case for eugenics.

 

The question then arises: will a eugenics program in fact result in a smarter population? The statement I cited earlier--the one signed by 52 academics--states that heritability estimates for intelligence range from 40 - 80%. Your response was to draw the word "heritability" into question, implying that a correct understanding of the word's meaning would undermine my case. I looked up the word "heritability" in dictionary.com, and the most relevant definition is this:

The proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to variance in genotypes.

 

A phenotype is some observable characteristic of an organism, such as eye color, height, etc. A genotype is the underlying genetic code which affects the phenotype. Maybe a baby is born with the genes to grow to 6'2" (genotype), but due to poor nutrition, actually grew to only 5'11". The actual height is what gets measured, and is the phenotype. The group's statement that "heritability estimates range from 0.4 - 0.8" therefore means that between 40% and 80% of the observed variation in intelligence from one person to the next is driven by genetics.

 

In this case, what's true for people is true for their parents. If your parents are, say, two standard deviations above the normal intelligence level, then (according to this group), the expectation is that between 40% - 80% of that extra intelligence has been driven by genetics. By observing the phenotype (measured intelligence) we gain insight into the genotype (genetic disposition toward intelligence).

[/dev/null]

Friggin owned.

811637[/snapback]

[Orton's Arm]

Friggin owned.

811637[/snapback]

My emotions are mixed. On the one hand it was a funny site. But I'm a little, um, puzzled as to why you would go through the trouble of setting up an entire website to celebrate a short, run of the mill post.

[Wacka]

It appears this discussion has gotten off track.

 

It sure has! It was about Err America going bankrupt.

[meazza]

My emotions are mixed. On the one hand it was a funny site. But I'm a little, um, puzzled as to why you would go through the trouble of setting up an entire website to celebrate such a short post.

811648[/snapback]

 

You need to understand something. There is no way of determining the intelligence level of children through the parents.

 

I'll give you an example.

 

40 years ago, a husband and wife left southern italy to move to Canada. With no skills, and about 5 years of schooling between them, no skills and not a penny to their names, they managed to have 4 children with degrees who are in the higher middle class of this industrialized country. Doing better really than I'd say 40% of the people who were born here and had some sort of head start from more intelligent deemed family members.

 

In all your statistics, there is one thing you can't assess and that's motivation, and as result, the entire eugenics program is a waste of time.

 

And I say this with the least insult as possible.

[EC-Bills]

Friggin owned.

811637[/snapback]

[Orton's Arm]

You need to understand something.  There is no way of determining the intelligence level of children through the parents.

 

I'll give you an example.

 

40 years ago, a husband and wife left southern italy to move to Canada.  With no skills, and about 5 years of schooling between them, no skills and not a penny to their names, they managed to have 4 children with degrees who are in the higher middle class of this industrialized country.  Doing better really than I'd say 40% of the people who were born here and had some sort of head start from more intelligent deemed family members.

 

In all your statistics, there is one thing you can't assess and that's motivation, and as result, the entire eugenics program is a waste of time.

 

And I say this with the least insult as possible.

811650[/snapback]

I see that you strongly disagree with me, yet are making the effort to be civil. I respect that.

 

To move onto your example, an aptitude test would have understated the intellectual abilities of the Italian immigrants you describe, both because of their lack of schooling and due to language difficulties. The fact they weren't in school very much probably was due to a lack of opportunity, rather than to anything driven by genetics.

 

I myself know of cases where children of immigrants dug themselves out of poverty. Typically they did so through determination, as well as through having the genetic potential to achieve intellectually challenging tasks. I respect such people both for their drive and for their intelligence.

 

A eugenics program would encourage smart people to have more children than less intelligent people do. But it wouldn't address the issue of work ethic/desire, either in a positive or a negative way. I'd like to address it, but I don't see how an institution can measure desire. In this case I'm settling for half a loaf by having programs increase intelligence, while neither raising nor lowering the average level of desire.

 

America's present childbearing incentives encourage lazy people to have more children than more ambitious people do. Suppose there are two women with the same below-average I.Q. One is lazy, the other ambitious. Which do you think will be more likely to go on welfare? Considering the government encourages welfare recipients to have more kids, this represents a problem. If work ethic is genetic, it's a problem. If it's environmental it's a problem, because the natural role models for these kids (their parents) are lazy.

[meazza]

I see that you strongly disagree with me, yet are making the effort to be civil. I respect that.

 

To move onto your example, an aptitude test would have understated the intellectual abilities of the Italian immigrants you describe, both because of their lack of schooling and due to language difficulties. The fact they weren't in school very much probably was due to a lack of opportunity, rather than to anything driven by genetics.

 

I myself know of cases where children of immigrants dug themselves out of poverty. Typically they did so through determination, as well as through having the genetic potential to achieve intellectually challenging tasks. I respect such people both for their drive and for their intelligence.

 

A eugenics program would encourage smart people to have more children than less intelligent people do. But it wouldn't address the issue of work ethic/desire, either in a positive or a negative way. I'd like to address it, but I don't see how an institution can measure desire. In this case I'm settling for half a loaf by having programs increase intelligence, while neither raising nor lowering the average level of desire.

 

America's present childbearing incentives encourage lazy people to have more children than more ambitious people do. Suppose there are two women with the same below-average I.Q. One is lazy, the other ambitious. Which do you think will be more likely to go on welfare? Considering the government encourages welfare recipients to have more kids, this represents a problem. If work ethic is genetic, it's a problem. If it's environmental it's a problem, because the natural role models for these kids (their parents) are lazy.

811656[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. They aren't encouraged to have more, they just do. My brother has 4 kids and he's I'd say pretty well in the income bracket. His wife's family is wealthy and they all have a bunch of kids, to the point that most people I know wonder how can they support so many children. It's tradition I guess. The problem is the work that's involved.

 

It is more difficult to have children now. Traditionally, the wife stayed home and the husband brought home the $$$. Now, it's much more likely that both parents work and this makes it very difficult financially if one decided to stay at home and take care of the children. A cash incentive to these families would not be enough. Do you realize how much money it would take to begin giving to middle income families for producing more kids before the family even feel it would be worth it to have more kids.

[/dev/null]

My emotions are mixed. On the one hand it was a funny site. But I'm a little, um, puzzled as to why you would go through the trouble of setting up an entire website to celebrate a short, run of the mill post.

811648[/snapback]

 

Most people would sit and wallow in the pwnage inficlted upon you (by me ) and get a chuckle out of the website created by BlueFire. Meanwhile they plot revenge

 

You on the other hand are probably trying to figure out how to deplete myself and Bluefire from the genepool of your master race

[Orton's Arm]

Most people would sit and wallow in the pwnage inficlted upon you (by me )

Dude, you called my sex life "masterbatory"--hardly an unheard-of witticism on a football discussion board. You made a comment about Holcomb taking a while to go downfield. We're not exactly talking about Shakespeare here. That website has really gone to your head.