Register to reply

Is IQ Really a Genetic Thing?

by Paleo-Conservative
Tags: genetic, thing
Share this thread:
Nachtwolf
#19
Feb16-04, 10:19 PM
Nachtwolf's Avatar
P: 119
Originally posted by Evo
No you ignoramous, I was referring to your use of the word "retard" in reference to a person with a mental illness. What are you 10 years old?
Hahahaha, am I not politically correct enough for you? Just for fun, let's think back - the word "retarded" is actually an old PC term. It was a way to talk about people who were previously called "idiots" or "morons" in a friendly, non-stigmatized way.

I'm sorry if you find the word "retard" offensive, although it's quite amusing that you'll defend the honor of the retarded and then immediately turn around and try to insult me by calling me the stupidest person you've ever seen.


--Mark
Evo
#20
Feb16-04, 11:12 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,527
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahahaha, am I not politically correct enough for you? Just for fun, let's think back - the word "retarded" is actually an old PC term. It was a way to talk about people who were previously called "idiots" or "morons" in a friendly, non-stigmatized way.
--Mark
Actually the word "moron" originally was a medical classification used in psychology for people with mild mental retardation of a mental age between 7-12 years of age generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. It's original use did not have the negative connotations currently associated with it.

The term "idiot" was originally a medical classification used in pyschology to describe a person with profound mental retardation, usually with a mental age below 3 years and generally unable to learn connected speech.

The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard".
Nachtwolf
#21
Feb17-04, 01:06 AM
Nachtwolf's Avatar
P: 119
The term "retard" has always been used by uneducated people as a slur against people with mental handicaps.
One of my good friends, Daniel, is gay. He refers to himself as a fag. The politeness police freak out when they hear this; it's incredible how emotionally unhinged some people are, isn't it?

So to be correct, I'd have to say you are a moron as opposed to an idiot, but I would never stoop to calling you a "retard".
Well, you can call me anything you like, but your hypersensetivity to the word "retard" doesn't change the fact that right now, retards can be convicted of heinous crimes and avoid the full penalty of the law. If you don't dispute that, then why are you even arguing? Because you personally are intolerant of certain words, and feel the need to burden others with your emotional baggage?


--Mark
Nereid
#22
Feb17-04, 09:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
hitssquad wrote: According to the CIA World Factbook's figure of 604,111,719 netizens in the world, the United States has 27% of the world's netizen population.
... and making some possibly unwarranted extrapolations (using data from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm),
- next year (2005) there will be more netizens in the EU than the US
- in 2007 there will be more in China than the US (so that Accenture (?) ad wasn't wrong!)
Nachtwolf
#23
Feb17-04, 10:42 PM
Nachtwolf's Avatar
P: 119
Hey, now you're thinking like a eugenist!

And I'd be surprised if 2007 rolled around and you turned out to be wrong.


--Mark
hitssquad
#24
Feb17-04, 10:56 PM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Originally posted by Nereid
- next year (2005) there will be more netizens in the EU than the US
- in 2007 there will be more in China than the US
That latter extrapolation is in keeping with Richard Lynn's prediction (from his book Eugenics: A Reassesment) that China -- because of its population's present characteristic IQ and because of its population's characteristic temperament which allows for state-controlled eugenics -- will soon become the world's sole superpower.

--
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state.
--
(Richard Lynn. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Chapter 21, The Evolution of the Eugenic World State; Part 5, The Emergence of Chinese Global Supremacy; p314.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/0275958221





-Chris
Nereid
#25
Feb18-04, 04:48 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Hmm, Let's see now, 1.2b > 0.3b, so China will become a bigger economy than the US when its per capita GDP is only ~25% as big (crudely). India, 1.1b > 0.3b; 1.1b ~1.2b, so India will reach the size of China (economically) only if their relative rates of economic growth cross over. Further, once there's (relatively) free trade, (relatively) free movement of capital, not too much corruption, at least a modestly capitalist economy, a decent system of universal public education, (etc), then the economic theory of comparative advantage is all you need to say that the Chinese economy will grow to be larger than the US'. And so will India's, but it might take another 10 more years.

No need for Lynn; Ricardo and Adam Smith are more than sufficient.
hitssquad
#26
Feb18-04, 05:59 AM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Originally posted by Nereid
once there's (relatively) free trade, (relatively) free movement of capital, not too much corruption, at least a modestly capitalist economy, a decent system of universal public education, (etc), then the economic theory of comparative advantage is all you need to say that the Chinese economy will grow to be larger than the US'. And so will India's,
Many arabic nations have all of these things, yet universally are economic failures, relying upon happenstance rentier rights, rather than upon creation of economic value, to feed themselves.

Ditto for many tropical resort nations.

These are the low-IQ outliers from the Lynn-Vanhanen regression trend line. They make far more money than their IQs alone would predict. But they also make far less money than their happenstance wealth would predict under the comparative advantage model. Norway is similarly blessed with oil as Saudi Arabia is, yet, unlike the latter's, Norway's economy is not dropping like a rock. The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool afflicted with a tendency to express as a low-IQ, uneducable and unemployable populace that cannot even find employment for itself within its own national borders in the face of competition from higher-IQ foreign guest workers. These are Saudis with college degrees. Perhaps it is because Saudi employers -- in a nation of mentally-13-year-olds where everyone possesses a state-sponsored college degree -- know what a Saudi college degree is worth.

With an average IQ of 81, India will buck the trend and grow to be a more-powerful economy than the United States (with an average IQ of 98) is? How? The United States has plenty of people with low IQs, too. They systematically fail to contribute to the economy of the United States. Why would low-IQ people perform any differently in India?

As they softly speak magic spells rote memorized in a decent system of universal public education they will burn their cow dung into gold bars? In the words of Vandana Shiva,

--
In India we worship cow-dung as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. The famous festival of Gobur-dhan puja is literally the occasion to worship gobur (cow-dung) dhan (wealth).
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=india+%22cow+dung%22





-Chris
russ_watters
#27
Feb18-04, 08:23 AM
Mentor
P: 22,288
Originally posted by Nachtwolf
One thing is clear, however - there's no turning back. Now that the facts have been brought to light, we can't make them disappear. All we can do is try to steer this in a sensible direction as best we can.

--Mark
Just to be clear here, you're suggesting that those deemed less intelligent should not be allowed to breed?[edit:nevermind, just read the next thread.]

There are some major misconceptions in your post, specifically your comment re: voting, but I'll get to that later. That eugenics thing if I understand you correctly is very, very bad.

And I didn't see it, but has anyone mentioned the identical twins issue?
hitssquad
#28
Feb18-04, 10:02 AM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Originally posted by russ_watters
has anyone mentioned the identical twins issue?
What is the identical twins issue?





-Chris
Nereid
#29
Feb18-04, 01:24 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Originally posted by hitssquad
Many arabic nations have all of these things, yet universally are economic failures, relying upon happenstance rentier rights, rather than upon creation of economic value, to feed themselves.

Ditto for many tropical resort nations.

These are the low-IQ outliers from the Lynn-Vanhanen regression trend line. They make far more money than their IQs alone would predict. But they also make far less money than their happenstance wealth would predict under the comparative advantage model. Norway is similarly blessed with oil as Saudi Arabia is, yet, unlike the latter's, Norway's economy is not dropping like a rock. The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool afflicted with a tendency to express as a low-IQ, uneducable and unemployable populace that cannot even find employment for itself within its own national borders in the face of competition from higher-IQ foreign guest workers. These are Saudis with college degrees. Perhaps it is because Saudi employers -- in a nation of mentally-13-year-olds where everyone possesses a state-sponsored college degree -- know what a Saudi college degree is worth.

With an average IQ of 81, India will buck the trend and grow to be a more-powerful economy than the United States (with an average IQ of 98) is? How? The United States has plenty of people with low IQs, too. They systematically fail to contribute to the economy of the United States. Why would low-IQ people perform any differently in India?

As they softly speak magic spells rote memorized in a decent system of universal public education they will burn their cow dung into gold bars? In the words of Vandana Shiva,

--
In India we worship cow-dung as Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. The famous festival of Gobur-dhan puja is literally the occasion to worship gobur (cow-dung) dhan (wealth).
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=india+%22cow+dung%22
(taking a deep breath ....)

Perhaps we should start a thread on economic development? It's taken quite a while - and some rigourous applications of statistics that would make even Jensen's hair curl - but there's a solid body of economic practice and theory that addresses your points.

In 15-second sound bites (yes, vastly over-simplified):

Many arabic nations: deliberately denying half the adult population the opportunity to participate meaningfully and fully in economic life?

Ditto for many tropical resort nations: small economies with very narrow bases -> no resilience against the inevitable shocks

*SNIP higher-IQ foreign guest workers (in Saudi)*SNAP; *SNIPWith an average IQ of 81, India will *SNIP: er, the guest workers come from India (and Pakistan, and ...)

The oil-wealth of Saudi Arabia is perhaps a curse which masked the viral infection of a corrupt gene pool *SNIP: make that "a corrupt elite" and it's generalisable; immense natural resource wealth is a curse, especially for a developing economy without strong democratic institutions

Democratic and 'free economy' institutions: these are more important than was realised in the 1950s, and take ~two decades to build if there are older traditions and institutions to work from; if not (e.g. a particularly nasty colonial legacy, as in the Congo; a war, as in VietNam), even longer

Women's lib: as above

Universal public education: literacy matters (and numeracy counts)

And above all else: free trade. This is the most powerful tool the US has used - as both carrot and stick. And it's still hugely important - ask the cotton farmers of west Africa why they can't make a living by exporting their high quality, competitively priced cotton to the world's largest market. One reason why the Chinese economy has been able to grow so well (and why the Indian economy will too) is that it's big enough to withstand shocks from trade with the US, and is big enough to be credible in negotiating with OECD countries.

Oh, and if L+V's work is badly flawed, what is the point of repeating what's in their book?
Nachtwolf
#30
Feb18-04, 05:33 PM
Nachtwolf's Avatar
P: 119
That eugenics thing if I understand you correctly is very, very bad.
I think you understand me correctly, but I also think your ability to use value judgments is underdeveloped. Let's be sure of the first point and then we'll tackle the second.

I shouldn't have to state that I'm opposed to genocide and involuntary sterilization. I am wary of genetic manipulation and don't promote it. I'm not a fan of totalitarian schemes of any sort. But I am especially in favor of voluntary eugenics such as free mate choice, genetic counselling, and personal decisions about how many children to have, and I am also in favor of certain low-key governmental programs such as socialized (free, widely and easily available) birth control, immigration reform, and public announcements.

Now that that's clear, let's look at your ability to use value judgments.

What in God's Green Earth is wrong with voluntarily deciding to have more or fewer children? What in blazes is "very, very bad" about giving people free birth control and letting them use it as they wish? What is so horrible about educating people on the subject of evolution? Are those "Truth" commercials which highlight the inherent dangers to smoking "very, very bad?"

Here's a better question, Russ - do you think that poverty, crime, illiteracy, illegitemacy, driving accidents, and workplace incompetence are "very, very bad?" And if so, what is your plan for decreasing these problems? If you think you have a better way to resolve these issues in a humane and cost effective manner, I'm sure we would all be very interested to hear what it is!


--Mark
Nereid
#31
Feb18-04, 06:07 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
hitssqud wrote: That latter extrapolation is in keeping with Richard Lynn's prediction (from his book Eugenics: A Reassesment) that China -- because of its population's present characteristic IQ and because of its population's characteristic temperament which allows for state-controlled eugenics -- will soon become the world's sole superpower.
--
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state.
You don't need any of this scary stuff, simple global free trade and an open economy (plus 1.2 billion people) will ensure that China gets bigger than the US economically (with India following a decade or two later).

The rest seems to me like what I understand psychologists call "projection" - it's what Lynn would do if he were Hu Jintao's successor.

A more detailed study of Chinese culture might lead a different scholar to a very different conclusion.
Nereid
#32
Feb18-04, 06:16 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Nachtwolf wrote: But I am especially in favor of voluntary eugenics such as free mate choice, genetic counselling, and personal decisions about how many children to have, and I am also in favor of certain low-key governmental programs such as socialized (free, widely and easily available) birth control, immigration reform, and public announcements.
Didn't I see that you also thought removal of all 'hate laws' would be a good idea, ditto a return to segregated schools (in the US), banning all conjugal visits to prisoners (or was it only blacks?), significant welfare reform, and (I'm not so sure of this) redistribution of spending on public education, away from schools for poor blacks to rich whites?
hitssquad
#33
Feb19-04, 01:46 AM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Originally posted by Nereid
You don't need
...the g nexus?...





simple global free trade and an open economy (plus 1.2 billion people) will ensure that China gets bigger than the US economically (with India following a decade or two later).
Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?

China's genetically characteristic high IQ, and India's genetically characteristic IQ terminating at below the mental age of the average 13 year old British child, do not effect the respective probabilities for China's and India's respective economic outcomes? Yet IQ does effect relative outcome between American cities and American states? How could this be?





-Chris
Nereid
#34
Feb19-04, 07:18 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
hitssquad wrote:
China's genetically characteristic high IQ, and India's genetically characteristic IQ terminating at below the mental age of the average 13 year old British child, do not effect
[sic; I think hitssquad means 'affect'] the respective probabilities for China's and India's respective economic outcomes? Yet IQ does effect [sic; harder to say; both 'affect' and 'effect' could be what hitssquad means] relative outcome between American cities and American states? How could this be?
Well, for a start, I don't think it's been established what the 'genetically characteristic IQ' of either economy is.

First, there's still an open 'Stats-101' question about the data Lynn and Vanhanen used - and the conclusion they reached - re 'China' and the dominant population group (Han Chinese).

Then, for me at least, a set of open questions on L+V's methods.

Third, the Wipro reality check (see the other thread) - I understand Wipro is not a sport, nor managed by white Americans (and certainly not by Han Chinese!); there're a rather a lot of Indian software companies, producing absolutely world-class products. (But then, maybe 13 year old British kids are pretty good hackers? Well, last time I looked, the Indians among them certainly could be ).

Fourth, my toy research - city living all but guarrantees smarts.
hitssquad wrote: Assuming that the g nexus is operable in the United States, why would it not be operable in the rest of the world?
This is a really good question . I've got some ideas; ttul.
hitssquad
#35
Feb20-04, 05:10 AM
hitssquad's Avatar
P: 1,382
Originally posted by Nereid
city living all but guarrantees smarts.
Then we are left with the questions of why:


1. within the United States, heritability of IQ has been found to be high.

2. children rescued from adversity, both moderate and severe, tend to fall into a normal distribution of IQs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ch...m+adversity%22

3. Chinese have high IQs despite China's poor environment (Chinese heat their homes with coal buring inside the home; much of the population lacks an education, viz literacy is only at 86%).

4. wealthy, urbanized oil and resort nations have low IQs.





-Chris
Nereid
#36
Feb20-04, 08:56 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Originally posted by hitssquad
Then we are left with the questions of why:

1. within the United States, heritability of IQ has been found to be high.

2. children rescued from adversity, both moderate and severe, tend to fall into a normal distribution of IQs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ch...m+adversity%22

3. Chinese have high IQs despite China's poor environment (Chinese heat their homes with coal buring inside the home; much of the population lacks an education, viz literacy is only at 86%).

4. wealthy, urbanized oil and resort nations have low IQs.
These are, of course, very good questions.

However, the second two require us to first have to hand good data on the IQs of many, many groups of people in many countries. Such data may exist; however, it's not to be found in Lynn and Vanhanen's " Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations".

Let's do some toy research anyway. Let's take L+V's "National IQ" for rich North American (Canada, US), European (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, UK), and Asia-Pacific economies (Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore). I've already established, using L+V's reported data, that there's no correlation between National IQ and 1998 real per capita GDP ('wealth' for shorthand).

What about wealth and urbanisation? No correlation.

How about National IQ and urbanisation?
~57% correlation!

Of course, this is toy research, and almost all the correlation is accounted for by two data points - Ireland (IQ 87, urbanisation 6) and Portugal (91, 5.8); Finland (the other low urbanisation nation (also 6) has the same IQ as the US (98), is the outlier (must be all those Lapps ... oops! Lapps are closest to SE Indians genetically, and nearest Indians on the PC plane ... and they have IQs of ... er, oh dear)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Is this an ego thing, a dishonesty thing, or a smart thing to do? (concerning grades) Academic Guidance 10
I come to these forums for one thing and one thing only. General Physics 1
Genetic. Help Biology 4
Genetic relationships Biology 3