Err America files Chapter 11

[Orton's Arm]

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.

811690[/snapback]

You make good points. If a woman can stay home to raise kids, it really makes a big difference. But as you point out, it's a big hit to your family's income. You could probably encourage people at the margin to have kids. Maybe an extra $200 a month would make the difference between not affording an extra kid, and just barely affording one. But for people who were truly at the top of the intellectual pecking order, I'd favor a far more massive subsidy. Staying home and raising kids should be a viable career choice for a woman of truly exceptional intelligence, because the U.S. will benefit from the children of such women a lot more than it would have benefitted from keeping the cash.

[Bungee Jumper]

It appears this discussion has gotten off track.  My main point is that a eugenics program would significantly increase the number of smart people.

 

No, it hasn't gotten off track. Your main point is what's in question.

 

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).

811640[/snapback]

 

No, no, no, no, no. You're confusing "heritability" with "inheritability" again. Heritability is about the expression of genes, inheritability is about how they're passed from generation to generation. Just because "40-80%" of the genotype affects the phenotype, it does not mean that "40-80%" of the parent's genotype affects the child's phenotype.

 

Which is above and beyond precisely how intelligence is inherited. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? How many genes are involved? How many of those genes are dominant or recessive?

 

Which is above and beyond the fact that "40-80%" is a hell of a wide margin...and if heritability falls at the low end of that range, it means that genetics is not the determining factor. And if inheritability falls at the low end of that range...your eugenics program will do nothing more than diverge towards the mean, rather than converge towards a defined goal, as you could easily see yourself if you had any idea what you're talking about.

[/dev/null]

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.

811830[/snapback]

 

Given the time i posted that, it wasn't he website that had gone to my head. it was all the alcohol that had gone to my head

[Ramius]

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]

 

3 hours of sex doesnt count when it takes you 2 hrs 59 minutes and 30 seconds to get it up.

[Orton's Arm]

3 hours of sex doesnt count when it takes you 2 hrs 59 minutes and 30 seconds to get it up.

811961[/snapback]

In that case, you should be giving yourself credit for 30 seconds, instead of for 15.

[Orton's Arm]

No, no, no, no, no.  You're confusing "heritability" with "inheritability" again.  Heritability is about the expression of genes, inheritability is about how they're passed from generation to generation.  Just because "40-80%" of the genotype affects the phenotype, it does not mean that "40-80%" of the parent's genotype affects the child's phenotype. 

 

Which is above and beyond precisely how intelligence is inherited.  Is it a dominant or recessive trait?  How many genes are involved?  How many of those genes are dominant or recessive?

 

Which is above and beyond the fact that "40-80%" is a hell of a wide margin...and if heritability falls at the low end of that range, it means that genetics is not the determining factor.  And if inheritability falls at the low end of that range...your eugenics program will do nothing more than diverge towards the mean, rather than converge towards a defined goal, as you could easily see yourself if you had any idea what you're talking about.

811895[/snapback]

Let's think this through here, with four different scenarios:

1. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's a dominant gene.

2. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's recessive.

3. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're dominant.

4. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're recessive.

 

Under scenario 1, a high intelligence phenotype implies a high intelligence dominant gene, without telling us anything at all about the person's recessive gene. A child of such a parent would have a 50% chance of getting that high I.Q. gene, and a 50% chance of getting the recessive gene. On average, the recessive gene will be for an intelligence level in line with that of the general population. In this scenario, the only people capable of producing smart children are smart parents, so a eugenics program would make sense.

 

Under scenario 2, intelligence is a recessive trait. To be smart, you'd have to have inherited the gene for high intelligence from both your parents. Under this scenario, smart parents are only capable of producing smart children, while people of normal intelligence will sometimes produce smart children also. Scenario 2 would seem to be inconsistent with the observed phenomenon of regression toward the mean. But if scenario 2 really was true, a eugenics program would of course make sense.

 

Under scenario 3, a person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so of such genes. Under this scenario, two smart parents would produce children whose intelligences were halfway between the average of the parents, and the average for the population group to which the parents belonged. A eugenics program would of course make sense, because the children of intelligent parents would, on average, be smarter than the children of those less bright.

 

Under scenario 4, the children of two geniuses would necessarily be geniuses themselves. This is because neither parent would have any mediocre-IQ genes to pass along to the kids. This scenario is inconsistent with regression toward the mean. But in the unlikely event it was true, a eugenics program would make sense.

 

To make a long post short, government policies which encouraged smart people to have more kids would, in fact, make the population smarter. The previous statement isn't contingent on whether high intelligence is a dominant or recessive trait, or whether one gene or 100 genes affect intelligence. The relative degree of success of a eugenics program might be affected by these things. But they cannot affect the absolute certainty that a successful eugenics program will lead to a higher average genetic capacity for intelligence.

[Bungee Jumper]

Let's think this through here, with four different scenarios:

1. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's a dominant gene.

2. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's recessive.

3. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're dominant.

4. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're recessive.

 

Under scenario 1, a high intelligence phenotype implies a high intelligence dominant gene, without telling us anything at all about the person's recessive gene. A child of such a parent would have a 50% chance of getting that high I.Q. gene, and a 50% chance of getting the recessive gene. On average, the recessive gene will be for an intelligence level in line with that of the general population. In this scenario, the only people capable of producing smart children are smart parents, so a eugenics program would make sense.

 

Under scenario 2, intelligence is a recessive trait. To be smart, you'd have to have inherited the gene for high intelligence from both your parents. Under this scenario, smart parents are only capable of producing smart children, while people of normal intelligence will sometimes produce smart children also. Scenario 2 would seem to be inconsistent with the observed phenomenon of regression toward the mean. But if scenario 2 really was true, a eugenics program would of course make sense.

 

Under scenario 3, a person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so of such genes. Under this scenario, two smart parents would produce children whose intelligences were halfway between the average of the parents, and the average for the population group to which the parents belonged. A eugenics program would of course make sense, because the children of intelligent parents would, on average, be smarter than the children of those less bright.

 

Under scenario 4, the children of two geniuses would necessarily be geniuses themselves. This is because neither parent would have any mediocre-IQ genes to pass along to the kids. This scenario is inconsistent with regression toward the mean. But in the unlikely event it was true, a eugenics program would make sense.

 

To make a long post short, government policies which encouraged smart people to have more kids would, in fact, make the population smarter. The previous statement isn't contingent on whether high intelligence is a dominant or recessive trait, or whether one gene or 100 genes affect intelligence. The relative degree of success of a eugenics program might be affected by these things. But they cannot affect the absolute certainty that a successful eugenics program will lead to a higher average genetic capacity for intelligence.

812104[/snapback]

 

What is this horseshit? "[A] person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so"? So your contention now is that intelligence can be determined by counting genes?

 

No, I know that's not your contention...but it's what makes your examples absolute nonsense; they're not even remotely grounded in reality. Use an example that at least makes it look like you understand how genetics works...

[Orton's Arm]

What is this horseshit?  "[A] person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so"?  So your contention now is that intelligence can be determined by counting genes? 

 

No, I know that's not your contention...but it's what makes your examples absolute nonsense; they're not even remotely grounded in reality.  Use an example that at least makes it look like you understand how genetics works...

812222[/snapback]

In my example, I was trying to communicate the idea that there might be 100 genes that affect someone's intelligence level. Under this hypothetical example, vos Savant would have 100 genes for high intelligence; whereas someone like George W. Bush would have 40 genes for high intelligence, and 60 for low intelligence. Leon Lett would have 5 genes for high intelligence, and 95 for low.

 

Selective breeding programs have been effective for thousands of years; long before people heard the word "genetics." People started with the wolf, and converted it into the dog. But not just one form of dog--dogs were bred for fighting, sheep herding, water rescue, and a host of other roles. Dog breeders have determined dogs' size, their general personality types (think of the pit bull!), even their intelligence levels.

 

I'm unaware of a single case where a selective animal breeding program has failed. Suppose a breeder decided he wanted trait X. The plants or animals with the highest amount of trait X would be allowed to breed; the rest wouldn't. Over the course of several generations, the plants or animals in question will come to have higher levels of trait X.

 

You seem to think that there are cases where you could breed for trait X without getting any results. For example, you'd breed the biggest dog of a litter with the biggest dog of some other litter; you'd keep doing this for several generations, but you wouldn't get bigger dogs. I'm a little confused as to why you think this is a possiblity, or where you got the idea that something along these lines had ever been observed.

[Bungee Jumper]

In my example, I was trying to communicate the idea that there might be 100 genes that affect someone's intelligence level. Under this hypothetical example, vos Savant would have 100 genes for high intelligence; whereas someone like George W. Bush would have 40 genes for high intelligence, and 60 for low intelligence. Leon Lett would have 5 genes for high intelligence, and 95 for low.

 

And this seems...I don't know...reasonable to you?

 

 

You seem to think that there are cases where you could breed for trait X without getting any results.

813397[/snapback]

 

Yes, I do. I own a manx. Know what a manx is? It's a tailless breed of cat. Know what happens if I breed my manx true with another manx? I'd get cats with tails of all sorts. Maybe I'll get another manx. But then, maybe I'll get a manx when I breed tailed cats anyway (which is where my manx came from).

 

Breeding - like just about everything else you think you've understood in this discussion - is nowhere near as clear-cut as you mistakenly believe. Really, you're a phenom...you've managed to be consistently incorrect on just about every point you've made, and yet you still manage to stand by them when you're demonstrated to be incorrect. Incredible.

[Orton's Arm]

  And this seems...I don't know...reasonable to you?

Yes, I do.  I own a manx.  Know what a manx is?  It's a tailless breed of cat.  Know what happens if I breed my manx true with another manx?  I'd get cats with tails of all sorts.  Maybe I'll get another manx.  But then, maybe I'll get a manx when I breed tailed cats anyway (which is where my manx came from).

 

Breeding - like just about everything else you think you've understood in this discussion - is nowhere near as clear-cut as you mistakenly believe.  Really, you're a phenom...you've managed to be consistently incorrect on just about every point you've made, and yet you still manage to stand by them when you're demonstrated to be incorrect.  Incredible.

813502[/snapback]

Each of the four examples I gave were based on points you'd raised earlier. You yourself questioned whether one or many genes affect intelligence, or whether the gene for high intelligence was dominant or recessive. I don't necessarily feel the four examples I provided are the most likely ways in which genetics affect intelligence. They do, however, demonstrate that raising questions about the number or dominance of genes that affect intelligence isn't an effective way to shoot down a eugenics program. If you don't like the examples, raise different objections.

 

As I think about your manx example, it seems to me the gene for taillessness is dominant. If two manx parents have recessive genes that state, "make a tail," you could get a kitten with a tail. However, if your goal was to maximize a kitten's chance of being tailless, you'd be best off selecting tailless parents. So the manx example hardly undermines the scientific basis for the eugenics program I suggest.

 

I don't see where your last paragraph came from. You say breeding isn't as clear-cut as I believe. Yet with the exception of the manx example, you've done little to try to illuminate any of its nuances. Moreover, you claim I've been "demonstrated" to be incorrect. If memory serves, your Monte Carlo simulation was intended to be exactly such a demonstration. You were so confident its results would make me look foolish you were even willing to bet $20 on its outcome. I remember thinking its methodology was flawed, in that you had I.Q. going from parents to oldest child, and from there to the rest of the children. But even with that flaw, I still felt the benefit of a eugenics program would shine through. Your recent silence about your Monte Carlo simulation would seem to confirm this view.

[Orton's Arm]

Given the time i posted that, it wasn't he website that had gone to my head.  it was all the alcohol that had gone to my head

811949[/snapback]

Well, I've seen much worse "got drunk and posted something" examples than that!

[Ramius]

Let's think this through here, with four different scenarios:

1. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's a dominant gene.

2. There is one gene pair for high intelligence, and it's recessive.

3. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're dominant.

4. There are 100 genes for high intelligence, and they're recessive.

 

Under scenario 1, a high intelligence phenotype implies a high intelligence dominant gene, without telling us anything at all about the person's recessive gene. A child of such a parent would have a 50% chance of getting that high I.Q. gene, and a 50% chance of getting the recessive gene. On average, the recessive gene will be for an intelligence level in line with that of the general population. In this scenario, the only people capable of producing smart children are smart parents, so a eugenics program would make sense.

 

Under scenario 2, intelligence is a recessive trait. To be smart, you'd have to have inherited the gene for high intelligence from both your parents. Under this scenario, smart parents are only capable of producing smart children, while people of normal intelligence will sometimes produce smart children also. Scenario 2 would seem to be inconsistent with the observed phenomenon of regression toward the mean. But if scenario 2 really was true, a eugenics program would of course make sense.

 

Under scenario 3, a person who got all 100 genes for high intelligence (such as vos Savant) would be smarter than someone who merely got 80 or so of such genes. Under this scenario, two smart parents would produce children whose intelligences were halfway between the average of the parents, and the average for the population group to which the parents belonged. A eugenics program would of course make sense, because the children of intelligent parents would, on average, be smarter than the children of those less bright.

 

Under scenario 4, the children of two geniuses would necessarily be geniuses themselves. This is because neither parent would have any mediocre-IQ genes to pass along to the kids. This scenario is inconsistent with regression toward the mean. But in the unlikely event it was true, a eugenics program would make sense.

 

To make a long post short, government policies which encouraged smart people to have more kids would, in fact, make the population smarter. The previous statement isn't contingent on whether high intelligence is a dominant or recessive trait, or whether one gene or 100 genes affect intelligence. The relative degree of success of a eugenics program might be affected by these things. But they cannot affect the absolute certainty that a successful eugenics program will lead to a higher average genetic capacity for intelligence.

812104[/snapback]

 

Holy sh--! You've managed to reach an entirely new level of stupidity and ignorance. As someone with a VERY strong background in biological sciences, i cant even begin to tell you how just absolutely and completely WRONG this is.

 

You're not just "Way off base", or hell, yous not just "not even in the ball park". What you just typed was equivalent to hopping a flight to china, going to shanghai, sitting in the ballpark, and expecting to see the tigers and cards for game 1 of the world series.

[Wacka]

Now DCT=CTM=BJ is an expert in genetics along with physics, economics and everything else.

I'm not getting into the arguement.

[Orton's Arm]

As someone with a VERY strong background in biological sciences, i cant even begin to tell you how just absolutely and completely WRONG this is.

Apparently you missed my post to Bungee Jumper where I explained the reason for these four examples.

[Ramius]

Apparently you missed my post to Bungee Jumper where I explained the reason for these four examples.

814149[/snapback]

 

No i didnt, and it didnt do sh-- to help your lost cause.

[IBTG81]

Now DCT=CTM=BJ is an expert in genetics along with physics, economics and everything else.

I'm not getting into the arguement.

814030[/snapback]

 

[Orton's Arm]

No i didnt, and it didnt do sh-- to help your lost cause.

814192[/snapback]

It appears you've missed the point entirely. Bungee Jumper wrote the following:

Just because "40-80%" of the genotype affects the phenotype, it does not mean that "40-80%" of the parent's genotype affects the child's phenotype. Which is above and beyond precisely how intelligence is inherited. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? How many genes are involved? How many of those genes are dominant or recessive?

The point of my four examples is that a eugenics program will work regardless of whether genes for high I.Q. are dominant or recessive, or whether 1 gene or 100 genes are involved in determining intelligence. If you care to dispute this point, please do so by illustrating 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.

[Bungee Jumper]

It appears you've missed the point entirely.  Bungee Jumper wrote the following:

Just because "40-80%" of the genotype affects the phenotype, it does not mean that "40-80%" of the parent's genotype affects the child's phenotype. Which is above and beyond precisely how intelligence is inherited. Is it a dominant or recessive trait? How many genes are involved? How many of those genes are dominant or recessive?

The point of my four examples is that a eugenics program will work regardless of whether genes for high I.Q. are dominant or recessive, or whether 1 gene or 100 genes are involved in determining intelligence. If you care to dispute this point, please do so by illustrating 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.

814269[/snapback]

 

I think the problem he (and I) are having defending our points is that you're not capable of understanding them. I've already pointed out four different failings in your hypothesis (namely: you don't know what a "correlation" is, you don't know the difference between "heritability" and "inheritability", you don't know what "inheritance" is to begin with, and you've greatly oversimplified just about everything known on the subject.) All of these points would be clear if you could read and understand the research (as I made the effort to do, when this stupid discussion started), instead of reading and misunderstanding a single Scientific American article.

 

At this point, I think it's safe to say that if, by some misguided reason, the government started paying people to breed smart children, you wouldn't be high on the list of grant recipients...

[GG]

So... still no answer on how to pick contestants for America's Stupidest Woman?

[Orton's Arm]

I think the problem he (and I) are having defending our points is that you're not capable of understanding them.  I've already pointed out four different failings in your hypothesis (namely: you don't know what a "correlation" is, you don't know the difference between "heritability" and "inheritability", you don't know what "inheritance" is to begin with, and you've greatly oversimplified just about everything known on the subject.)  All of these points would be clear if you could read and understand the research (as I made the effort to do, when this stupid discussion started), instead of reading and misunderstanding a single Scientific American article.

 

At this point, I think it's safe to say that if, by some misguided reason, the government started paying people to breed smart children, you wouldn't be high on the list of grant recipients...

814793[/snapback]

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. If Ramius was actually trying to provide deep insight here, you'd have some excuse for saying I'm not capable of understanding his point.

 

The rest of your post focuses on what you feel are my personal intellectual shortcomings. Even given the erroneous assumption you're right about these, your correctness would not disprove the usefulness of a eugenics program. Instead of merely claiming that I don't understand the word "heritablity," show why you feel a correct definition of the word would undermine the utility of a eugenics program. (For what it's worth, I do understand the word, as one might gather from the fact that I posted its definition from dictionary.com.)

 

I feel you're a smart person who, for whatever reason, has chosen the weaker side of an argument. You're doing a more convincing job than I probably could, largely because you're using tactics which I generally eschew. One of those tactics is to leave something half said.

 

The "heritability" thing is one example of this. For the purposes of the discussion, the word "heritability" means the portion of variation in an observable trait that's driven by genetics. For instance, let's say 75% of variation in height was caused by genetics; the other 25% by diet and other environmental factors. The heritability for height would be 75%. That 75% doesn't refer to the chances of height-related genes getting passed onto the next generation. Most of the time, a gene has only a 50% chance of being passed onto the next generation. (There are exceptions to this, called "selfish genes." These, I believe, are rare.)

 

For the purposes of the above example, genetics play a large role in determining people's heights. On average, a tall person will be significantly more likely to pass genes for tallness onto the next generation than a short person would be. This is because something observable (such as height) is a snapshot into the person's underlying genetic code. Odds are it's only a partial snapshot, and that there will be recessive genes for height which aren't made physically manifest. But even a partial snapshot is enough to make a selective breeding program work. Such programs have turned the wolf into countless breeds of dogs, with highly varying levels of intelligence. Such programs have produced breeds of horses designed for war, for racing, and for farming. They've produced numerous breeds of cats; with differing personalities and levels of intelligence.

 

Selective breeding programs also work for plants, and have been used to create the corn plant, various types of flowers, and other plants. Selective breeding works for animals, including the area of intelligence. There's a temptation to pretend people aren't affected by the same laws of genetics plants and animals are. But as indicated in the paper with 52 signatories, 40 - 80% of the variation in human intelligence can be explained by genetics. If you succeed in persuading smart people to have more kids than stupid people, the population will get smarter. There's little reasonable room for doubt on that point.

 

The real question is whether we should be making the population smarter. To me, it's a question of priorities. How important is it to ensure the next generation of children have the mental tools to succeed as individuals? How important is it to ensure the next generation has the pool of bright people needed to succeed as a group? Are there other questions so important they make these two questions irrelevant? I don't believe there are. To me, it's a question of balance: the U.S. should preserve the freedom of adults to make their own reproductive choices, while at the same time doing what it can for the next generation.