Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] IQ

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Tom, You cannot kid a kidder, friend. We both know that you just now found this online. And if you want throw your hat in with eugenics , well ... ew!
    Message 1 of 86 , May 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom,

      You cannot kid a kidder, friend. We both know that you just now found this online. And if you want throw your hat in with "eugenics", well ... ew! "Peace", in deed!

      Recent thinking on IQ has more or less abandoned the latter for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the rather uncritical and unscientific way that such 'scores' are compiled. (Leo Bascaglia. psychologist of some repute, was designated as "retarded" and irremediable as a child, due to the bias of testing procedures.) Only conservative (bigoted) theorists like the authors of The Bell Curve still try to ring that bell.

      Jews are good with money, Blacks can run and Asians are good in math? Really? How about Jews are greedy; Blacks are feral; Asian are secretive and calculating? They comes a set, as the Jews say.

      Finally, your defense of the Jewish example is illogical and unfounded. Of the hundreds of millions of Jews in Europe over the centuries, a scant minority were so stereo-typically well off or into the 'gelt' trades as you assume. The great many were dirt poor. Your 'survival of the well fed' story is a fabrication of your own making. Who do you think you're kidding? The naivety here is disgraceful, really.

      But, ... fine. Believe what you want.

      Wil


      -----Original Message-----
      From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 1:05 pm
      Subject: Re: [existlist] IQ





      Wil

      I found this study

      a.. | Lead Editor: Cheryl Scacheri
      Genetics and Society
      Heritability of Human Intelligence: IQ and Eugenics
      By: Karen Norrgard, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) © 2008 Nature Education
      Citation: Norrgard, K. (2008) Heritability of human intelligence: IQ and eugenics. Nature Education 1(1)





      How can we measure heritability to determine what amount of the complex trait of human intelligence is inherited? Also, what are the potential consequences of knowing the answer to this question?
      1.. 1Introduction
      2.. 2What Is Heritability and How Is It Estimated?
      3.. 3How Do Researchers Use Twins to Estimate Heritability?
      4.. 4Different Interpretations from Different Twin Studies
      5.. 5Heritability of Other Complex Human Traits
      6.. 6References and Recommended Reading

      The identification of factors that contribute to human intelligence has been a topic of study for over 100 years. Scientists, statisticians, educators, philosophers, and politicians have all weighed in on the matter. The U.S. eugenics movement of the early 1900s sought to prove that intelligence was almost entirely inherited. Today, it is well accepted that human intelligence is determined by a combination of genes and environment. Just what proportion of our intelligence is inherited remains a matter of scholarly debate, however.

      Different studies have measured the heritability of IQ to be anywhere from 40% to 80%. If IQ were only 40% heritable, then only 40% of the variation in human IQ levels would be due to genetic factors. This would mean that environmental factors, such as schooling and diet, heavily influence human intelligence levels. On the other hand, studies that find the heritability of IQ to be closer to 80% suggest that environmental factors have little to do with the broad range of IQs observed in human populations. Such discrepancies as to the role of environment and genetics have led to the argument that ethnic differences in intelligence are due to genetic differences, thus fueling racism debates. These discrepancies have also led to suggestions that early intervention and schooling are a waste of resources. This long-lasting debate has motivated repeated scholarly attempts to ultimately define the heritability of IQ.

      I have read similar ones all of my life. The author is saying that the correlations between heredity and the items measured might be anywhere from 40% to 80%.I am not arguing against the importance of the imprints that humans take at very young ages, or other environmental factors. I am only saying that the raw genetic material we are born with will tend to our physical and mental abilities, as well as many health issues. Certainly when both heredity as well as environmental factors are positive, the greatest success is often maintained. Barry Bonds was the son of the late Bobby Bonds, also a major league star and a buddy of Willy Mays, who is Barry's Godfather.Obviously, many famous families have repatedly produced leaders oin various fields through the fact that both the hardware as well as the software has been conductive to various successes. I listed the father and son of the Bonds, and there were a number of Huxley's in the leading edge of intellectual thought. I believe to tie our beliefs to assumptions that the discoveries of differences by genepools or sexes makes someone a racist or sexist is akin to the reluctance of some in the days of Galileo to be willing to look through a telescope, fearing it would be politically incorrect. Political incorrectness occured under atheistic Stalinism just as readily as under the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire. I heard a few years ago the joke that gayness was the only thing liberals would accept as genetic, and the only thing conservatives would deny as genetic. Obviously, for both parties the truth is more geared to support their agenda than a search for truth in the tradition of Socrates.

      As for your assumption that murder of children by parents would be necesary to produce increases in IQ over time among European Jewry, I disagree. In a society not likely to support anyone, let alone the cursed Jew with welfare payments, the brighter merchants would tend to make more money allowing more of them to marry, and afford to raise more children to maturity. Failed merchants would probably tend to be less likely candidates to win women's favors, and if married would often have to limit family size to exist on small earnings.

      Peace

      Tom

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: eupraxis@...
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 12:13 PM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] IQ

      Tom,

      You write "All of the studies that I have seen indicate that both heredity and environmental factors are significant in human development. Many studies have been made between siblings, especially twins; and very significant similarities are found between them even though they may both been adopted into very different homes."

      Response: What studies are they? Can you cite them? Since this is your primary proof, you should be able to mention a few, as the qualifier "all" in "all of the studies that I have seen" seems to imply a great body of evidence at your disposal. It is nice to see someone who actually reads a lot of studies. Most people use wikipedia and watch Discovery-TV shows, or just make stuff up.
      ---
      You: "...The paradigm that natural selection would favor European Jews that were forced to live by engaging in mentally demanding fields like commerce and finance, and favor aboriginal people who could run fast to avoid predators etc. certainly fits with the world we see."

      Response: Your knowledge of "natural selection" needs a little mending here. For the 'European Jew' example to make sense, the Jewish financiers would have to have killed whatever progeny they had had who did not follow in their parents' footsteps. In other words, their DNS would have to have been materially ended in its bloodline. Your example would be a spurious Lamarckian idea of adaptation.
      ---
      You: "... Of course, different gene pools have different patterns of culture and values, but to a large extent culture is the expression of creative intelligence expressing itself through a certain gene pool that are dealing with certain environmental realities."

      Response: Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about any given culture; no modern evolutionary biologist has ever made that claim. Culture is an entirely different domain than DNA. To say otherwise is, literally, a racist notion.

      Pax
      Wil

      -----Original Message-----
      From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 11:38 am
      Subject: Re: [existlist] IQ

      Jim

      All of the studies that I have seen indicate that both heredity and environmental factors are significant in human evelopement. Many studies have been made between siblings, especially twins;and very sigificant similarities are found between them even though they may both been adopted into very different homes.The paradigm that natural selection would favor European Jews that were forced to live by engaging in mentally demanding fiels like commerce and finance, and favor aboriginal people who could run fast to avoid predators etc. certainly fits with the world we see. Of course, different gene pools have different patterns of culture and values, but to a large extehnt culture is the expressioin of creative intelligfence expressing itself through a certain genepool that are dealing with certain environmental realities.IQ tests measure the type of intelligence useful in school. Many qualities that are quite useful in coping with the world are not included. To a greart extent Jewish Americans as well as Asiatic Americans as a group display not only higher than average IQ, and scholastic success; but also tend to show practical abilities to organize successful busineses,

      Peace
      Tom
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jim
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 9:36 AM
      Subject: [existlist] IQ

      Tom,

      I very much disagree with your remarks on IQ.

      I think IQ is a discredited notion, as all it measures it the ability of a person to score well on an IQ test.

      You imply IQ is a genetic property of the person. I disagree. I think the IQ a person has is largely determined by environmental factors in the first eight years of a child's life.

      You share - with Bill and Herman - a preference for biology over environment. As opposed to what you all say, I think environmental factors are much more significant.

      Those European Jews did not gain extra IQ genes through natural selection. Rather the European Jewish children had more stimulating family environments.

      Jim

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Hi Jim and Herman, I m glad to see your suggestions, Herman, are more moderate this time around. However, Jim, sensing these unnatural population curbs are not
      Message 86 of 86 , May 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jim and Herman,

        I'm glad to see your suggestions, Herman, are more moderate this time around. However, Jim, sensing these unnatural population curbs are not quick enough for Bill's tastes either, I'm thinking three children per couple is too high and not compensatory enough for our over consumption. For the most part I agree with both of you, and apologize for blurting out statistics concerning birth defects, infertility, and autism out of context. Not able to find solid numbers on autism worldwide, I can only assume they're rising like the infertility and birth defect rates which are higher in developing countries because health care and pollution are worse. I'll not bother with my usual breast beating, because I love my children more than my own life.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Jim,
        >
        > On 1 May 2011 22:16, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hi Herman,
        > >
        > > I completely agree with you that we should all be engaging in the issue of
        > > sustainable living, given such facts as world population increase and
        > > climate change due to carbon emissions.
        > >
        > > Perhaps you are retreating from your radical position of your February 2010
        > > posts. If so, I should be pleased to hear of your modified position.
        > >
        >
        > If anything, I have become more resolved in my position. I am just doing
        > what I can to make the tide appear as though I command it :-)
        >
        >
        > Anyway I have been thinking of my own position, and I would favour the
        > > introduction of legislation in the UK along these lines:
        > >
        > > New Law: It is only permitted for women to give birth to three children,
        > > and it is only permitted for men to be the registered father to three
        > > children. If a child dies before the age of eighteen, another child is
        > > permitted to the parents concerned.
        > >
        > > No problems here from me. And probably far more implementable than anything
        > I can suggest.
        >
        > I think the problems with fertility and reproduction arise where women are
        > not in charge of that. The origin of that problem does remain with men, in
        > so far as women are for them fuck-things, and goods and chattel. I suggest
        > here that this has both cultural and genetic bases. We can do nothing in the
        > short term about the genetics, but plenty about the culture.
        >
        > There are plenty of -isms that trade in keeping women as fuck-things and
        > goods and chattel. While we are taught, and accept, that it is important to
        > be nice people, tolerance for institutions that would have half the
        > population of the world at the disposal of the other half has to be
        > undermined.
        >
        > We won't need to sterilise everyone, only some men. And if that proves too
        > difficult (just see how hard it was to catch Osama), identify and agitate
        > without reservation against those -isms that would preserve the natural
        > order. You have identified some already eg Catholics and Muslims, and more
        > than half of those are women, mind you. Like I said, the problem is complex
        > :-)
        >
        >
        >
        > Such a law would not be as strong as the legislation in China, but given the
        > > UK population is not rising very fast, I think a law along the lines I
        > > propose would result in a slight decline in the population here.
        > >
        > >
        > I think the UK population is not rising fast, because women in the UK have
        > more control over reproduction than in, say, Africa. And I think the
        > legislation does work in China and would not elsewhere, because we have
        > tolerance for religious institutions built into our legal framework, and
        > they don't.
        >
        >
        >
        > > I think it is most important that the developed countries (Europe, US,
        > > Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) introduce such a law, as we are the
        > > countries with the largest carbon footprint per person.
        > >
        > > No doubt the Catholics and the Muslims would object to such a law, but I
        > > agree with you that certain freedoms do need to be curtailed by law for the
        > > sake of the future of civilisation and the survival of the human species.
        > >
        >
        > Yes, we agree.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        >
        > Herman
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.