IQ and GDP

  • Thread starter hitssquad
  • Start date
  • #26
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
Mandrake said:
Really? How did you come to that conclusion? It is simply not true. Have you read The _g_ Factor? Have you read a good sampling of Jensen's papers? Jensen has discussed factors other than intelligence and commented on their importance.

FWIW, I had the wonderful experience of several private conversations with Jensen yesterday and the day before. One lasted for over 1/2 hour. He is brilliant and held in the highest esteem by his colleagues (there are no peers).

Chill, buddy. I was only commenting on the quote that hitssquad posted. He said there that g was the single best cognitive correlate of success. I can almost guarantee you, without doing any studies, that living past the age of five will be a greater non-cognitive correlate.
 
  • #27
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
Just out of curiosity, if it is true that national IQ is the best predictor of economic strength (the actual question at hand here), how is that information helpful? We can't just import intelligent people and deport the unintelligent. There are plenty of measures that can be taken to improve the economy that are not so ethically objectionable.
 
  • #28
921
0
Humans judging, and nature abiding, technology

loseyourname said:
Just out of curiosity, if it is true that national IQ is the best predictor of economic strength (the actual question at hand here), how is that information helpful?
Priests and politicians demand that technology (the fruit of science) be helpful. Nature abides.



There are plenty of measures that can be taken to improve the economy that are not so ethically objectionable.
There is more than one national economy on this planet. It has been popularly observed that some national economies have been lagging behind others in terms of per capita GDP. Rectification of differences in per capita GDP has been a popularly expressed political agenda. Knowledge of major factors contributing to per capita GDP differences may be helpful to the designing of strategies for action, no matter what the given agenda may be.
 
  • #29
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
hitssquad said:
There is more than one national economy on this planet. It has been popularly observed that some national economies have been lagging behind others in terms of per capita GDP. Rectification of differences in per capita GDP has been a popularly expressed political agenda. Knowledge of major factors contributing to per capita GDP differences may be helpful to the designing of strategies for action, no matter what the given agenda may be.

It's also ethically objectionable to deport the intellectually deficient and import the intellectually elite to other nations. Besides, any such exchange would result in one nation's gain at the expense of another. The world would be no better off. Unless you advocate that we rid the world of all intellectually deficient people, something that is even more ethically objectionable.
 
  • #30
921
0
Parents' SES or g as the better predictor of SES

loseyourname said:
I'd imagine ... that the single greatest predictor of personal wealth is the wealth of one's parents.
  • Spearman's Hypothesis with SES Controlled. Countless studies have shown that school-age children's IQs are correlated with their parents' socioeconomic status (SES), as determined mainly by their occupational and educational level. Most of the IQ/SES correlations fall in the range of .35 to .45. (This implies a similar degree of correlation between g and SES.) Several facts indicate that the causal direction of the IQ/SES correlation is largely from IQ to SES: Adoption studies show near-zero correlations between adoptees' IQs and the SES of their adoptive parents; there is a virtual absence of between-families, or shared, environmental variance in IQ; and IQ is more highly correlated (about .70) with individuals' own attained SES (as adults) than individuals' IQs are correlated with their parents' SES (about .40).
(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. Chapter 11: Population Differences in g. p384.)
 
  • #31
921
0
loseyourname said:
Unless you advocate
Nature abides.
 
  • #32
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
hitssquad said:
Nature abides.

What the heck are you talking about, beaver boy? Nature abides what? Are you saying that our economy will be fine because nature will select out people with low intelligence? Now you'll need to show me some correlation between SES and reproductive success. You're great at cutting and pasting, but when you put things into your own words, you're as vague as a magic 8-ball.
 
  • #33
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
By the way, would you mind sharing an account if you want anyone to actually read the links you keep posting? No way I'm paying for something I barely care about.
 
  • #34
921
0
Nature abides technology

loseyourname said:
hitssquad said:
Priests and politicians demand that technology (the fruit of science) be helpful. Nature abides.
Nature abides what?
Technology. Nature does not care what you do with it.



Are you saying that our economy will be fine because nature will select out people with low intelligence?
Currently, nature is longitudinally deselecting both populations and subpopulations with high g. This condition is known as dysgenics and its recent trends are documented in a recent book of the same name by Richard Lynn:
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html

The economy of the United States may suffer.



Now you'll need to show me some correlation between SES and reproductive success.
There is currently a correlation worldwide and within most nations, but it is negative. Lynn, above, has numbers documenting the trend. Jensen, quoting from Vining, also has some numbers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/e-l/message/12756

The real problem is that the large number of persons with IQ's less than 30 points above the average are having fewer children than the equally large number of persons with IQ's less than 30 points below the average. Together, these two groups are almost 96% of the population. 70% of the population have IQ's between 85 and 115. Vining's study in 1978 found the highest white birthrates in women with IQ's of 86-100, or less than 1 SD below the mean (see Jensen, _g factor_, p. 485). Black women were most fertile with IQ's of 71 and below, or more than 1 SD below the Afro-American mean. Unfortunately, I haven't run across similar data for men, but it is commonly said that the poorest men have the least reproductive success, and presumably this population includes the great majority of the mildly retarded. Criminals are reported to have exceptionally high birthrates, but criminals tend to be of moderately low intelligence; they are typically not morons.

~Alypius
 
  • #35
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
hitssquad said:
Technology. Nature does not care what you do with it.

Okay, we're beginning to get somewhere hear. Nature abides technology. Now what definition of the word "abide" are you using? Nature waits for technology? Nature puts up with technology? Nature tolerates technology? And technology has what to do with the national IQ?

Currently, nature is longitudinally deselecting both populations and subpopulations with high g. This condition is known as dysgenics and its recent trends are documented in a recent book of the same name by Richard Lynn:
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html

That's about what I expected.

The economy of the United States may suffer.

I doubt it. There has been a constant influx of poverty since the inception of this nation, yet the economy has always improved.
 
  • #36
921
0
Draining brains out

loseyourname said:
hitssquad said:
Technology. Nature does not care what you do with it.
Now what definition of the word "abide" are you using?
"To endure or bear patiently," as in the book Earth Abides by George R. Stewart. You said that that technology cannot be useful "unless you advocate [particular avenue x]." Nature does not care what you do with technology.



And technology has what to do with the national IQ?
The findings of science are fruits, employable technologies. The finding that IQ is the single most powerful explanatory variable in the world today in terms of differences between nations in per capita GDP constitutes a technology. You said that that technology cannot be useful "unless you advocate [particular avenue x]." But nature abides.



There has been a constant influx of poverty since the inception of this nation, yet the economy has always improved.
There has been a historic influx of settlers and immigrants with high IQs. This is called brain drain. (Apparently because of its liberal political atmosphere and liberal economics) the U.S. drained brains from other nations. Currently, and notoriously, Russia is having its brains drained out.
 

Related Threads on IQ and GDP

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
120
Views
17K
D
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
15K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
Top