Do ICQ Tests Measure Intelligence?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Moonbear
(SNIP)[/color] For the sake of argument, let's assume the statement that the average IQ is dropping by 2 points every generation is true. What does that actually mean? (SNoP)[/color]

It means that the level of knowledge in our collective society is rising at an exponetial rate with the sheer volume of discoveries and inventions ongoing, it means that the tests have been advancing but the manner and ability to educate people, from youth, is not really changing as it cannot without changing the physical structures of people, it means that the average is indicated as dropping but that that may simply be as a result of the "other two ends" being stretched out even farther then ever before...hence why they tend to re-adjust the center of it, bell curve to the 100 %/tile it means more things then just that...

 

[Julian Solos]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Benjamin Disraeli [?], quoted by Mark Twain; Henry Labouchére [?]


He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts – for support rather than illumination.

Andrew Lang.


Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches

W.I.E. Gates

From: http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/basic_concepts.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

The one universal truth about intelligence, no matter what board I'm posting on, seems to be that the perceived intelligence of my posts largely depends upon whether the reader agrees or disagrees with my points.

Yes. It's called denial, and it always comes down to ad hominem insults, straw men arguments, guilt by association, and irrelevant put downs of statistics. The discussants are unwilling to couple to the substance of the argument, for whatever reason.

In fact the measured IQs around the world are rising and were rising during much of the 20th century. Better nutrition and better schooling (!) are the causes cited. It's called the Flynn effect after the man who discovered it.

And before someone says "See! Non genetic factors do matter!" note the difference between even an 80% reduction of variance and 100%.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Moonbear
The one universal truth about intelligence, no matter what board I'm posting on, seems to be that the perceived intelligence of my posts largely depends upon whether the reader agrees or disagrees with my points.

True, but I appreciate anyone that can state their opinion (whether I agree with them or not) without becoming unhinged, and I will complement them for that.

You will also find here that if you say anything with any certainty that you will be asked to furnish documented "proof" of what you are saying, which is why you will see so many references. Not to mention the links prevent copyright violations. But some people do get carried away.

Julian, you always make me smile. :)

Yes SelfAdjoint, IQ scores are actually increasing.

From the "link" I posted.

"with few exceptions, everyone acknowledges that raw IQ scores are increasing over time. The big debate is over why scores are increasing. Many including Flynn (1998) himself, suspect that there has been no real change in the anatomical and physiological substrates of IQ. Instead they argue that variables including increasing familiarity with test taking have driven the secular trend. This may indeed be true, but it poses a strong challenge to the interpretation of the genetic data on IQ – to what extent does the similarity among relatives measure real similarity in IQ as opposed to sophistication in test-taking?"

"Whatever the ultimate causes of the Flynn effect, the rise in IQ scores has been so strong that it cannot be plausibly caused by any known genetic mechanism of evolution."

"from a genetic perspective, one point is clear – humans are not just “born” with intelligence. Intelligence develops over time."

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
(SNIP)[/color] And before someone says "See! Non genetic factors do matter!" note the difference between even an 80% reduction of variance and 100%. (SNoP)[/color]

Humm I was adopted (was told from the beginning, best way!) so I can tell you that it helped me in NOT setting (sorta) genetic limtations upon myself, after all, I was NOT genetically the people who raised me, Well, actually I am, then again, so are you! (Hi Family!...AKA Cuz!)

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Evo You really are a dim bulb.

That's not what trained psychologists say. Your opinion is noted, but I'll take their consensus the opinion of one person. I mention this because it relates to a point you made here:

Heritability is only "moderate". See the link I posted if you need proof.

You provided the analysis of, apparently, one person named Carey. But the high heritability of intelligence has been verified and agreed upon by the entire American Psychological Association which said, I repeat:

If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (C2) to about .25 (e.g., Chipuer, Rovine, & Plomin, 1990; Loehlin, 1989). These overall figures are misleading, however, because most of the relevant studies have been done with children. We now know that the heritability of IQ changes with age: h2 goes up and C2 goes down from infancy to adulthood (McCartney, Harris, & Bernieri, 1990; McGue, Bouchard, Iacono, & Lykken, 1993). In childhood h2 and C2 for IQ are of the order of .45 and .35; by late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies).

In other words, the APA specifically states that Carey's conclusions are misleading because of the way he goes about calculating heritability. In the future, please read my posts more carefully before attempting a rebuttal.

You continue to spew off all of these irrelevant "statistics" of yours,

Ah - my statistics are irrelevant things which one apparently "spews," but your statistics are shining truth. It's good that we've cleared this up.

I guess he avoids reading anything that may prove him wrong?

Since you clearly did not read my quote from the APA which stated directly that moderate estimates of heritability like those you prefer are misleading, your comment is better applicable to your own posting style than to mine.

"from a genetic perspective, one point is clear – humans are not just “born” with intelligence. Intelligence develops over time."

Of course; no one disputes this fact.


--Mark


(P.S. I hesitate to say this, Evo, but I don't think you realize that my refraining from commenting on everything you post is actually an attempt on my part to avoid infuriating you - I think you're making mistakes in your arguments which you wouldn't be making if I didn't get under your skin.)

 

[Evo]

(originally posted by Nachtwolf) You provided the analysis of, apparently, one person named Carey.

Uhm, no. The paper was written by Carey, but the research was by Thomas Bouchard and Matt McGue, and that was only for the "first" table.

Nactwolf, you don't get "under" my skin because I think you're a fruitcake. I really don't take you seriously.

I think it's a shame that you get on here and post your paranoid drivel. It's a very transparent attempt on your part to "preach your religion" and get people to go to your website in the hopes of "converting" them. I don't approve of the use of a forum for personal reasons, but that's not my decision to make. I thought the purpose of this particular forum was to pose questions and have intelligent discussions, but you present your posts as undeniable "truths" and then make pathetic attempts to try to belittle the people that question them.

I've posted information here that offers a different view from yours, not for you, but for someone impressionable that might come here. They need to have access to information that's not slanted toward your silly fears. They can then make an "informed" decision.

(originally posted by Nactwolf) The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

I rest my case.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Agree a little with the last part of Evo's post, no need for a, or any, "eugenics" program(s) History has shown they don't work to resolve the 'appearance' of a problem, that isn't really there...we are, truly, ALL Cousins, genetic history, like it, or not.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, I agree against eugenics. They are fighting the fact that sexual reproduction has been designed by evolution to scramble genes from one generation to the next.

But evo's source, Carey's online textbook, is much more sympathetic to heritable g than he makes it seem. I encourage everyone who is at all deeply concerned in this topic to go read it. It's not too long, and the balanced view it provides is worth a ton of selective quotations.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
But evo's source, Carey's online textbook, is much more sympathetic to heritable g than he makes it seem.

Yes, he shows a LOT of evidence in favor of heritable g. He has compiled a great deal of research and presented the information without bias, allowing the reader to make their own decisions.

 

[hitssquad]

Why we test children's IQs

Originally posted by Moonbear
When I was a kid, IQ tests were administered primarily to the kids with a certain degree of aptitude in their classes as a way of determining if they were truly "gifted" for whatever reason the schools or parents had for wanting to know this information. If a kid just wasn't doing well in school, there didn't seem to be much point in confirming they had a lower IQ.

Confirm? How would you know if a child had a lower IQ unless it was tested? Many times a dull-seeming person has a learning disability or other problem masking his performance potential.

The primary targets of testing are the kids who are doing poorly. If it were not for the existence of stragglers, there would be no point in testing anyone. Tests are used to diagnose learning disabilities. If someone is doing poorly and has an average IQ, something is wrong. Perhaps he suffers from Sluggish Cognitive Tempo; or is deaf; or needs glasses; or is living in a home with domestic violence, or is suffering abuse or neglect.

The first IQ tests were used to identify the genuine dull-witted stragglers, as stated above. Then they were found useful to identify learning disabled in the normal IQs. Then they were found to be useful in identifying average functioning people who actually had above-normal IQs and learning disabilities at the same time.

Today, the IQ tests -- particularly the Wechslers -- are useful in not just giving an overall assessment of raw cognitive potential (the IQ score), but can also give clues to specific functioning problems and strengths. This is because tests like the Wechsler are made up of a wide variety of subtests. Some of these subtests test pure performance things like working memory. Some, such as the vocabulary subtest, test verbal abilities. The profiles of these subtest scores and index scores (special combinations of subtest scores) give clues to the education psychologists assessing the child. After using these clues and perhaps clues from other measures, the education psychologists can make diagnoses and give recommendations for compensation. (For example, perhaps the child should try Ritalin or a re-uptake inhibitor; in school the recommendation might be to give the child extra time or quiet; at home, the parents can apply advice to perhaps help with the child's organizational skills and make extra sure he gets enough, and high-enough-quality, sleep.)

On the other hand, many dull-seeming people really do have low IQs. These need to be separated from the merely-slow-because-of-disability and given extra-special, and extra-expensive, attention. Some of these low-IQ kids have learning disabilities on top of their low IQs. Again, with the use of the Wechslers, these learning disabilities are more-likely to be identified.


-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes, I agree against eugenics. They are fighting the fact that sexual reproduction has been designed by evolution to scramble genes from one generation to the next.

Do you honestly think that real life, modern day eugenists want to breed humans like livestock? You're paying too much attention to Evo. Read this essay if you want to understand what eugenics really entails:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Strategies


--Mark

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Strategies --Mark

Strategies? for what? deciding that you are one of the "Smart ones" who needs to survive? more so then anyone else? why?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do you honestly think that real life, modern day eugenists want to breed humans like livestock? You're paying too much attention to Evo. Read this essay if you want to understand what eugenics really entails:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Strategies


--Mark

Did I say anything about breeding? Eugenics by definition means some kind of intervention in the natural breeding process. Whether by reducing the number of "unsuitable" children, which was the practice that gave it its unsavory reputation, or encouraging "suitable" persons to have children.

I repeat that short of controlled breeding farms the eugenic enterprise will have no impact because it is naive about population genetics.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
(SNIP)[/color] I repeat that short of controlled breeding farms the eugenic enterprise will have no impact because it is naive about population genetics. (SNoP)[/color]

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself...

 

[Nachtwolf]

Did I say anything about breeding?

You said:

They are fighting the fact that sexual reproduction has been designed by evolution to scramble genes from one generation to the next.

We aren't fighting this fact. The only way we would be is if we were interested in breeding humans like racehorses.

Eugenics by definition means some kind of intervention in the natural breeding process

Socializing birth control won't change the way genes are shuffled - it will simply alter the proportions. This is the way natural selection works, and there's really nothing remarkable about it.

is naive about population genetics.

Explain.

Let me also add that you are aware that dysgenics is sucking around 2 points away from the genetic component to IQ every generation - certainly I established this the last time we discussed it, SelfAdjoint. The only thing which I believe could genuinely be construed as naive is believing that this dysgenic trend won't have disastrous consequences if left unchecked.


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

You said:
--------------
Let me also add that you are aware that dysgenics is sucking around 2 points away from the genetic component to IQ every generation - certainly I established this the last time we discussed it, SelfAdjoint. The only thing which I believe could genuinely be construed as naive is believing that this dysgenic trend won't have disastrous consequences if left unchecked
---------------

I say that you haven't "established" it because there isn't enough data to properly establish it. We do not know what the genetic precursors of g or IQ are and we cannot predict what population effect the differential childbearing, if prolonged, may bring. I pointed out that because genes get scrambled in meiosis the problem is not as simple as some may think. Mixing of populations can bring surpising results. It's a highly nonlinear relationship, with many if not most of the parameters are unknown. And your promoters have not proved otherwise.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do you honestly think that real life, modern day eugenists want to breed humans like livestock? You're paying too much attention to Evo. Read this essay if you want to understand what eugenics really entails:

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics.htm --> Strategies


--Mark

From the above site:

"It's been the dream of parents throughout history to give their children a better life than they had. Imagine being able to look at all the things you don't like about yourself, and make certain that your children never have them. With gamete selection, we would be able to select our very best genes, by choosing only our best sperm and eggs, and use these to make our children. This isn't the same as "tampering with nature;" this is simply taking the very best that nature has to offer."

Oh, no. This isn't 'tampering with nature' at all. It's not breeding like livestock. This is just so unbelievably twisted. My guess is that, since you seem to think you are so far superior to everyone else, you dream of lots and lots of perfect little Natchwolf-likes running around all over the world? And any mutant who doesn't have the 'right' IQ doesn't have any rights. Can't get a drivers license, etc... Will you also sterilize them against their will?
Jeez. Go to your room. You're grounded.

 

[Nachtwolf]

My guess is that, since you seem to think you are so far superior to everyone else, you dream of lots and lots of perfect little Natchwolf-likes running around all over the world? And any mutant who doesn't have the 'right' IQ doesn't have any rights. Can't get a drivers license, etc... Will you also sterilize them against their will?

That straw man was worth an eye roll.

Jeez. Go to your room. You're grounded.

*Sigh* This is always the way it begins. It just seems like such a chore; I wish it didn't take a year of arguing and bickering to get from You're so evil, go to your room to all attempts here to refute his assertions have failed. [EDIT:] Make that "failed horribly."

We do not know what the genetic precursors of g or IQ are

1. We don't need to know that; we need only know that IQ has narrow heritability. It does.

2. Pretending for a moment that we do need to know it, we are already finding alleles which affect IQ.

I pointed out that because genes get scrambled in meiosis the problem is not as simple as some may think.

It makes no difference that sometimes an allele on one chromosome moves to another. The simple fact is that the IQs of parents correlate with the IQs of children, even if these children were reared by others. Obviously, we can predict what will happen when people have kids.

Mixing of populations can bring surpising results. It's a highly nonlinear relationship

Actually, factoring for heterosis, it's pretty darn linear.


--Mark

 

[Tsu]

Natchwolf

a) I never said 'you're so evil'. YOU said that.

b) You didn't address the fact that I disputed your 'tampering with nature' statement with a quote from your site. How do you figure that gamete selection is not 'tampering with nature'? You can say "this is simply taking the very best that nature has to offer" all you want, but when you "select our very best genes, by choosing only our best sperm and eggs, and use these to make our children" - Toots, THAT's tampering with nature.

c) You didn't answer my question about sterilization. You just rolled your eyes - a true indicator of superior intelligence.

d) Didn't I tell you to go to your room?

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Do you honestly think that real life, modern day eugenists want to breed humans like livestock? You're paying too much attention to Evo. --Mark

Hmmm, odd you would say that since I never have.

You are such a fruitcake. You've made this ridiculous statement in this thread:

originally posted by Nachtwolf - I don't view this bulletin board as a personality contest in which the more people like me, the better, since I don't derive my self esteem from the approbation of others and am perfectly comfortable when people say "you're a jerk, but I think you're right."

Gee Nachtwolf, I've looked and looked and NO ONE has ever said that you are right. You've made similar untrue and ridiculous statements in other threads. You do seem to have an inferiority complex.

(originally posted by Nactwolf) The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

I rest my case again.

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf: 1. We don't need to know that [what the genetic precursors of g or IQ are]; we need only know that IQ has narrow heritability. It does.

hitssquad: *SNIP As to the latter, the point of testing IQs is to ascertain relative levels of functioning of general mental ability. If population conglomerates of these results are different from results found in other populations, that clue can be used as a raison d'être for further inquiry. Purposely making the results not appear, as you propose, would seem to be counterproductive to the end of establishing grounds for action -- such action as, say, distribution of IQ-boosting nutritional and pharmacological aid to low-IQ nations.

It has come to light through medical research -- especially that within the last decade -- that anti-senescence efforts, heavy-metal chelation, and anti-oxidant supplementation would have dramatic effects on the average IQ of the general population of the United States, and especially of the older members of that population. We could perhaps raise the average IQ of the US 20 points through modest efforts in these areas.

Perhaps we don't need a breeding program to raise the general IQ levels of sub-Saharan countries after all? Maybe not needed even for the US??

 

[hitssquad]

Massive IQ boosting sans eugenics

Originally posted by Nereid
Perhaps we don't need a breeding program to raise the general IQ levels of sub-Saharan countries after all? Maybe not needed even for the US??

If you can simulate and/or stimulate and/or evade (as in the case of phenylketonuira -- the Flowers for Algernon condition which can lead to mental retardation in babies -- where the brain-damaging process is silenced as long as the patient does not consume too much of the amino acid phenylalanine) the processes coded for by the genes, then, relatively speaking, specific genetic code is not necessary. However, the existence of a genetic blueprint makes it easier to document the effects of biological experiments, such as the one you seem to be proposing. For example, if you ordered a population to consume every day, for the rest of their lives, at regimented times of day, certain diets and pharmacological menus, it might be difficult to obtain a statistically reliable assessment of how many, if any, actually were doing what you ordered them to do. Hence, your experiment would be the equivalent of driving blind. For example, you might conclude from the data of your experiment that Brahmi does not raise IQ, when it instead could be the case that it would have except very few persons could stand the bitter taste.

Largely, the 20-some-odd IQ-raising effect that I was referring to in my previous post had to do with staving off reductions in IQ that normally begin in at the latest in young adulthood and progress continuously parallel with physical decline for the course of a typical American's lifetime until he is missing about 15 points of his former IQ by the time he is 60, 30 points of his former IQ by the time he is 70, 45 points of his former IQ by the time he is 80, and so on (this varies from person to person dependent on a. oxidant status and b. anti-oxidant status). In a healthy young adult, you might only see a typical 5-point rise in IQ resulting from administration of the antioxidants neutriceuticals and nootropics that are known about and available today.

So, right away, you would only see a small increase. A big advantage of this course of action, however, would be the sustenance of "elders" who would not only have a century's worth of experience and mental training, but would also have IQ levels matching those of their youths with which to put these thing to use.

Another issue to consider, though, if higher IQ really is better, is that once everyone standardizes on whatever the current "optimum" IQ-boost regimen might be, variance in IQ would be 100% accounted for by genes. The retarded population -- whether this population has the same average IQ it does now or whether this population has an average IQ equivalent to our IQ 145 -- would have no recourse to better IQ. They would have to live out their lives hospitalized and given special low-IQ work much as they do now, even if they would have been considered very superior in general intellect compared to the average general intellect of our present society.


-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by Tsunami
I never said 'you're so evil'. YOU said that.

I was making fun of you. You have no idea what I represent.

You didn't address the fact that I disputed your 'tampering with nature' statement with a quote from your site.

Boy, you and Evo really like things you say to be addressed, don't you? It's like you need my responses to feel validated.

Look Tsunami, I thought your statement was silly. Gamete selection isn't the same as genetic manipulation. We're not talking about creating artificial genes in a lab. We're not talking about splicing nonhuman genes into people. We're talking about choosing some natural, pre-existing sperm to fertilize the egg. Is it unnatural to chose the ripest peach at the grocery store? Is it unnatural to pick the prettiest puppy at the kennel to be your pet?

Jesus Christ, we live in a society where half the kids wear braces. We live in a society where the primary form of entertainment is electronic. We live in a society where just about nobody is born without a team of doctors and nurses, thousands of dollars of computer equipment, and a nice long shot of painkiller to ease the mommy's special journey, where the first thing you get when you're born is a series of vaccinations, and you're taking issue with sperm selection on the grounds that it's "unnatural?"

You didn't answer my question about sterilization. You just rolled your eyes - a true indicator of superior intelligence.

Because - now hear this! - I'm not in favor of sterilization. *Gasp* In fact, I oppose it. *Double Gasp* If you'd actually paid attention to my website, you could have read this little gem:

Many people have simplistic ideas about what eugenics ultimately boils down to. The two main methods for effecting eugenic change which come to mind when you mention the word "eugenics" to someone is either mass sterilization or genetic manipulation, neither of which are seriously spoken of amongst modern eugenists regardless of religious or political affiliation. I will consider both in turn.

In many cases, I have prefaced discussion by stating my opposition to totalitarian sterilization schemes, only to find people angrily "debating" against the concept as though I somehow supported it. Now obviously, mass sterilization would work to effect eugenic change. But the amount of dissatisfaction and unhappiness caused by such a heavy handed solution is not only counterproductive, it is infeasible in a democratic society. As long as more humane and more effective measures exist, there is no reason to promote such a thing, which is why few eugenists bother discussing it anymore except with people who have no idea about what eugenics really is.

A suggestion: In the future, if you want me to bother addressing your arguments, at least try to deceive me into thinking that you have a clue as to what you're arguing about.

Originally posted by Nereid
Perhaps we don't need a breeding program to raise the general IQ levels of sub-Saharan countries after all? Maybe not needed even for the US??

We don't need any kind of "breeding program" at all. But is socializing birth control (that is, distributing it to people for free and letting them use it if they wish) really such a radical idea?


--Mark

 

[Tsu]

Natchwolf

Boy, you and Evo really like things you say to be addressed, don't you? It's like you need my responses to feel validated.

Well, let’s see… This is a forum is it not? Questions and answers? You make a proposal, we ask questions. How bad can it be to expect an answer from the one who has made the proposal? And trust me. Validation from the likes of someone like you is about the most undesirable thing I can think of. Ever.

Is it unnatural to chose the ripest peach at the grocery store?

No, but it IS unnatural to genetically alter the peach for increased size, brighter color, less fuzz… Usually there is a loss of something – like FLAVOR. How does eugenics address that? And tell us, what do you do with your 'mistakes'. The ones that don't quite measure up to your standards of intelligence... I mean, you won't let them have a driver's license or anything like that. What else is store for lower IQ range? (Have you ever known anyone with Down Syndrome? Have you NEVER learned ANYTHING from them? Obviously not and that's really too bad. You should pay better attention.)

Is it unnatural to pick the prettiest puppy at the kennel to be your pet?

It is for me. That’s not what I look for in a puppy. Personality, people skills…those are things I look for – things, which, I’m fairly sure, you wouldn’t understand.

I don't derive my self esteem from the approbation of others and am perfectly comfortable when people say "you're a jerk, but I think you're right."

Do you feel as perfectly comfortable when people say ‘you’re a jerk and I think you’re WRONG”?

Well, gosh Mark. No wonder eugenics is your thing. Since you obviously have absolutely no people-skills whatsoever, you might just NEED it in order to procreate.

A suggestion: In the future, if you want me to bother addressing your arguments, at least try to deceive me into thinking that you have a clue as to what you're arguing about.

Now, why didn’t I think of that? (However, you DID address my arguments, now didn't you?) But, if you think you are the most intelligent person here, then deceiving YOU would be impossible, wouldn't it? No, I'll leave the deception to you. According to you, you’re the ONLY one with a clue. Well, dream on...

I’m done here.
Bye bye, troll!

 

[Nereid]

Nachtwolf wrote: We don't need any kind of "breeding program" at all. But is socializing birth control (that is, distributing it to people for free and letting them use it if they wish) really such a radical idea?

No, it's not.

However, in an earlier post you wrote (despite the last para, and the per capita GDP figure, I guess your numbers refer only to the US):

Whites are losing approximately 1.6 points per generation via differential fertility, blacks are losing approximately 2.4 points per generation from differential fertility, and, due to shifting demographics the country the national IQ is shifting roughly 2 points downward every twenty five years.
The IQ of the average criminal is 8 points lower than the IQ of non-criminals.
The profile of the typical neglectful or abusive mother is a woman with an IQ of 80.
IQ is a better predictor of future earnings than the social class into which you are born.
The average IQ of a nation correlates at 40% with the per capita GDP of that nation.
The minimum IQ needed to graduate from a 4 year university is 100. The average IQ of college graduates is 115, and their average fertility is around 1.7, while the average fertility of those in this country without a high school education is around 2.8.
We should expect that a shift of 3 IQ points downward (which at current rates of decline will occur before 2050) will increase the number of permanent high school dropouts, men prevented from working by health problems, children not living with either parent, men ever interviewed in prison, persons below the poverty line, children in poverty for the first 3 years of life, women ever on welfare, women who become chronic welfare recipients, and children born out of wedlock by approximately 20%.
The crucial importance of intelligence, and the current drain on our intelligence, overshadows all other political concerns and represents the greatest threat to civilization in the modern world. Unless we enact some form of eugenic program or take voluntary action to solve this problem, we are living in the last days of modern civilization.

I'm not sure that "socializing birth control (that is, distributing it to people for free and letting them use it if they wish)" would cut the mustard.

I'm trying to get to each of your assertions, but, as you well know from your participation in other threads, I don't seem to be able to get basic information about the studies which appear to form part of the foundation on which you make your assertions.

 

[Nachtwolf]

I apologize if I seem recalcitrant. I have a lot of other things going on right now, and in light of the garbage I have to put up with from other posters, I hope my low post volume recently is understandable. If you are genuinely interested in hearing what I actually represent, I'll be as clear as I can.

Some people (who accept the existence of dysgenics) do believe that "Kosher" eugenic reforms won't work to solve the dysgenic problem and that we should just give up, although they are generally in the minority. Bear in mind that dysgenics is happening pretty slowly, and it's just a result of current reproductive trends created largely by advances in birth control combined with the relaxation of natural selection on the lower class and disinterest in childbearing of the upper class inherent to any advanced civilization. In other words, dysgenics is going on because right now the incentives and social norms push it along. But there are a variety of ways to change these incentives and social norms; here are a few.

1. Some 60% of pregnancies in the lower class are unwanted. Since the lower class is generally low on IQ, distributing free birth control to poor neighborhoods would by itself have the theoretical potential to completely reverse current dysgenic trends. (It would have the additional effect of giving present generations of lower class citizens a financial break - they wouldn't have to pay for all the children they can barely afford right now. This would reduce financial inequality between upper and lower class citizens)

2. Advertizing. "Truth" commercials.

3. Immigration reform. If you have something to offer (hopefully a college degree) and can speak the dominant language, come on in. If you have nothing to offer, we don't need you. Immigration reform like this would not only insure an influx of high-IQ genes, but would help fix the wreckage of America's present national security.

4. Educate about basic dysgenics in Sex Ed and College so that people have a better idea of how their choices affect the gene pool.

5. Prison reform. No more conjugal visits. No parole for violent felons to father more children. The best available evidence (Lynn's figures, incidentally, taken from Great Britain's population) shows that criminals have a whopping 70% higher fertility than non-criminals. Criminality has a heritable component, being about 60% genetic and 40% environmental (from Eysenck's figures).

6. More research. More testing of IQ and outcomes. Identify those genes which affect IQ in order to better track their spread and get a better idea about what's happening. The more information we have about this, the more people will pay attention, and the better we will be able to combat dysgenics.


The most important element to all of this is simply spreading information to the populace at large. Obviously none of these reforms can happen unless the majority agrees that they are wise. This is why I am posting on this bulletin board.


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't really disagree with much of your program, although you are going to have a tough time convincing high school teachers to teach that some of the students in the class are "inferior" (no matter how you sugar coat it, that's what you mean) to the other students and should be encouraged not to "breed".

On your item 1, the reform of welfare has reduce the unwanted birthrate in the least capable segment already. When you give women of any IQ capable of independent life a motivation not to have a lot of kids, they will take it. The former method, ADC, amounted to paying poor women to have more children.

 

[hitssquad]

The legend of scheming welfare mothers

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
On your item 1, the reform of welfare has reduce the unwanted birthrate in the least capable segment already. The former method, ADC, amounted to paying poor women to have more children.

What is presented here seems to be an explanation for why something might be occurring being used instead as evidence that it is occurring. Is that thing occurring, selfAdjoint?

selfAdjoint also wrote
When you give women of any IQ capable of independent life a motivation not to have a lot of kids, they will take it.

It has also been proposed that typical welfare moms might not take "a motivation not to have a lot of kids" if they can't understand why such prudence might be desirable. IOW, it has been proposed that welfare mothers may as a group largely get that way because of relative inability to long-term plan, regardless of offered financial rewards for failure to plan, and that the legendary scheming involved in seeing a potential reward in the form of ADC and formulating a long-term plan to reap that reward may in fact be beyond their limited mental capacities despite ability to live on their own as adults.

In a largely urbanized industrial and technological society, with its ever increasing information-intensive demands, life for those with IQs below eighty becomes a series of frustrating trials. Using a telephone directory, getting through a voice-mail system, reading bus or train schedules, banking, keeping financial records, filling out forms and dealing with the bureaucracy, using a VCR, cooking food in a microwave, following directions on prescriptions or over-the-counter drugs, passing drivers' tests, knowing where, when, and how to shop economically, and countless other routine demands of daily life in modern society are all cognitive challenges for individuals with low IQ, and are often beyond their capability.

The g Factor. p554.

Another hypothesis posits a more direct causal relationship between low IQ and most forms of criminal behavior. It claims that low IQ individuals have a short time horizon; that is, they are more present-oriented and more lacking in foresight than most people. Persons with low IQ fail to adequately and realistically imagine the future consequences of their actions. Their immediate behavior is therefore less thoughtful and more impulsive. And they are also less apt to be guided by the recall of past experience because long-range foresight, imagination, and recall of past experience are all g-loaded cognitive functions.

The g Factor. p572.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874



-Chris

 

[Nachtwolf]

don't really disagree with much of your program, although you are going to have a tough time convincing high school teachers to teach that some of the students in the class are "inferior" (no matter how you sugar coat it, that's what you mean) to the other students and should be encouraged not to "breed".

On the contrary - all they need do is continue their current intentions of decreasing teen pregnancies, and slip in a little extra reminder "to those of you who are going off to college," who may want to consider starting a family and why.

Part of the problem with the IQ debates is that the world average is 90. Less than 100. This is what comes from considering smarter races "average" or "normal." If it were up to me, I'd re-norm the IQ scale to reflect the world average, so that US Blacks had 95, Latinos 100-105, Whites 110, East Asians 115, etc. Unfortunately, it isn't up to me, and the numbers are what they are.

However, there's no need to phrase eugenic sex-ed in such negative terms. In truth, I'm more interested in raising the smart birth-rate than decreasing the dumb birth-rate - right now 1st world nations are sufferring from low fertility.

What is presented here seems to be an explanation for why something might be occurring being used instead as evidence that it is occurring. Is that thing occurring, selfAdjoint?

Hahahaha! That's the one question SelfAdjount doesn't know the correct answer to. That's quite understandable - he's surrounded perpetually by people who have trouble pronouncing hair it a bill it tee, let alone realizing that it has something to do with this eye kyoo stuff. I'm sure that all these debates with ignorant anti-eugenists have taken the zing out of some of my understanding of the situation. You can only simplify things for the willfully dense so many times before the simplified version takes on the colors of reality.

welfare mothers may as a group largely get that way because of relative inability to long-term plan

The un-sung sorrows of dysgenic erosion to Conscientiousness. If only I had figures calculating the genetic loss to that trait in CQ points, I would have enough to effectively explain why it's happening.


--Mark