http://www.neoeugenics.com/
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
So, what are your thoughts?
Regards.
At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
That is very true which is another reason why I think Darwin failed to take into account that reproductive success is not necessarily moving a population toward the better side of the spectrum but the dumber, more frequent side. Even in allelic levels, the chances of having the recessive allels that make one person smart and the other normal favor that the majority are normal and not "superior"
That is very true which is another reason why I think Darwin failed to take into account that reproductive success is not necessarily moving a population toward the better side of the spectrum but the dumber, more frequent side. Even in allelic levels, the chances of having the recessive allels that make one person smart and the other normal favor that the majority are normal and not "superior"
You have a great evolutionary perspective. Thou I disagree with your view that Darwin is "racial" I must say, you have it figured out. I actually would add the follwong:
6- Human beings are becoming progressivly less fit because the few remaining fit individuals refrain from relating with the majority normal or less-intelligent crew knowing that their offsprings would be of a lowe quality, therefore there is a outflux of good genes in humanity. Muations seems to be the only thing, causing the sporadic appearance of good genes in populations that have a history of normalcy and unintelligence.
6- Human beings are becoming progressivly less fit because the few remaining fit individuals refrain from relating with the majority normal or less-intelligent crew knowing that their offsprings would be of a lowe quality, therefore there is a outflux of good genes in humanity. Muations seems to be the only thing, causing the sporadic appearance of good genes in populations that have a history of normalcy and unintelligence.
QUOTE (Drude+Feb 12 2005, 03:54 AM)
You have a great evolutionary perspective. Thou I disagree with your view that Darwin is "racial" I must say, you have it figured out. I actually would add the follwong:
Thanks, though the site I posted is not mine, it belongs to Matt Nuenke. I just read his literature.
The literature I read of Darwin made claims that there are innate differences between races with respect to cognition and behavior. Whether true or not, this is what I read.
Regards.
Thanks, though the site I posted is not mine, it belongs to Matt Nuenke. I just read his literature.
The literature I read of Darwin made claims that there are innate differences between races with respect to cognition and behavior. Whether true or not, this is what I read.
Regards.
Yes, but this was a great topic. Unfortunately, most universities evade such discussions fearing being labled racial or what not but this certainly is a field that deserves much study. I appreciate your answer and have a good one 
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 12 2005, 05:37 AM)
Yes, but this was a great topic. Unfortunately, most universities evade such discussions fearing being labled racial or what not but this certainly is a field that deserves much study. I appreciate your answer and have a good one
There is one Professor, J. Philippe Rushton, who is the most notorious advocate of innate cognitive and behavioral differences between races. He wrote the book “Race, Evolution and Behavior”. An abridged version of his book is available online at http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
In chapter 10 of this book, he goes into what evolutionary biologists call life history theory. This theory is a way that biologists theorize what sort of adaptations different species, or sub-species as in races, make to adapt to various environmental stimuli.
In his book, he details how the three major racial groups have various genotypic, phenotypic and behavioral differences. Some major examples would be brain size and IQ scores (with a correlation between the two as larger brains equals more neurons), gamete production (sperm cells and eggs), hormonal differences (testosterone production for example) and what I will mostly touch on here: reproductive strategies.
Reproductive strategies can be classified into two major types: r and k strategies. Species which practice r-strategies usually emphasize gamete production, mating behavior, low parental care, and high reproductive rates. Species, which practice k-strategies, conversely emphasize high parental care, lower reproductive rates, resource acquisition and a higher degree of social complexity. The k-strategy requires a more complex nervous system as well as larger brains than the primarily r-strategist species do.
In nature, we can see the difference between extreme cases of r and k strategist species. For example, an oyster can produce 500 million eggs a year, while the great apes can reproduce only one infant every 5 or 6 years. Thus, the oyster will have reproduced itself 2500 million times, by the time a great ape will have reproduced itself once. The oyster will not spend any time “parenting” over its offspring, while the great ape will put much time and energy into nurturing their offspring.
While primates in general are the most k-strategist of all of the species, there still remain differences between them. For example, a lemur is more r-strategist than a gorilla. In fact, going across the primate spectrum, research has shown that primates become more k-strategist with increasing brain size, with a correlation of .98.
While humans are primarily k-selected, again differences appear in sub-groups like races as they did within species. As the increased brain size in primates is indicative of k-strategist over r-strategist species, brain size in racial groups also shows a correlation between increased brain size and k-strategist reproductive strategies.
Different means of measuring brain size have been used to gain the average brain size of the three main racial groups that anthropologists usually classify. The methods involve measuring the skull size and estimating brain size, volume displacement of skulls( I.e. filling up an empty skull with a substance and measuring the volume of the skull), autopsy measurements, and more recently, (and the most effective form) MRI. No matter what methods used, the results consistently come out as Mongoloids and Caucasoids both having larger brain sizes than Negroids, with Mongoloids having a slightly larger brain size than Caucasoids who in turn, have much larger brains than Negroids. The mean listed for all of the measurements, to give you an example of the differences of brain size are: Mongoloids 1,364 cm^3, Caucasoids 1,347 cm^3 and Negroids 1,267 cm^3.
The phenotypic, genotypic and behavioral differences between the races are a result of adaptation to environmental stimuli. So what kind of environmental stimuli are responsible for the adaptation of r vs. k strategies and brain size, and what sort of relation are there between the two?
Rushton and others postulate the Single Origin theory. This theory is that Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples dispersed out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and migrated to the colder, northern environments, while the Negroid peoples remained in Africa in their warmer environment. About 41,000 years ago, there was a split between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples, with the Mongoloid peoples splitting migrating towards and even colder environment than the Caucasoid peoples.
Another theory related to the Single Origin theory is one that I will call the bio-energy theory. The bio-energy theory is that each developing sub-species possess a similar amount of bio-energy that a sub-species will expend to act adapt to their environment.
In colder, northern environments, Whites and Asians had to hunt for their food, provide shelter and put more mental energy into survival and social structure than in the sub-Saharan environments of Africa, where the warm weather and abundance of food required less mental energy to be put into survival, I.e. tool building, constructing shelter, farming, etc. Because of these environmental stimuli, Whites and Asians grew bigger brains to deal with this harsh northern environment. A word that evolutionary biologists used to describe this phenomenon is encephalization. Encephalization is an increase in brain size during the evolution of a species, with no concomitant increase in body-size.
While Whites and Asians expended their respective bio-energy on encephalization as response to their environment, blacks on the other hand, adapted r-survival reproductive strategies and used their bio-energy on reproductive efforts. In his book, Rushton details how blacks have higher intercourse frequencies than Whites, who in turn have higher ones than Asians, have a higher developmental precocity (age of first intercourse, first pregnancy) and higher primary and secondary characteristics ( genital size, salient voice, muscularity, buttocks, etc.) than Whites and Asians. They also produce more hormones than Whites or Asians and have more permissive attitudes to pre-marital sex than Whites or Asians and have differing biological behavioral control than Whites or Asians (I.e. length of menstrual cycle, periodicity of sexual response, etc.) In fact, all of these behaviors show a correlation with both brain size and r vs. k selection, with Asians being more k selected than Whites who are more k selected than Blacks; with the abovementioned brain sizes: Asians> Whites> Blacks.
Another interesting component of r vs. k reproductive strategies are some of the social system characteristics. R strategists tend to show low social organization and low altruism while k-strategists tend to favor higher social organization and higher altruism.
Regards.
There is one Professor, J. Philippe Rushton, who is the most notorious advocate of innate cognitive and behavioral differences between races. He wrote the book “Race, Evolution and Behavior”. An abridged version of his book is available online at http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
In chapter 10 of this book, he goes into what evolutionary biologists call life history theory. This theory is a way that biologists theorize what sort of adaptations different species, or sub-species as in races, make to adapt to various environmental stimuli.
In his book, he details how the three major racial groups have various genotypic, phenotypic and behavioral differences. Some major examples would be brain size and IQ scores (with a correlation between the two as larger brains equals more neurons), gamete production (sperm cells and eggs), hormonal differences (testosterone production for example) and what I will mostly touch on here: reproductive strategies.
Reproductive strategies can be classified into two major types: r and k strategies. Species which practice r-strategies usually emphasize gamete production, mating behavior, low parental care, and high reproductive rates. Species, which practice k-strategies, conversely emphasize high parental care, lower reproductive rates, resource acquisition and a higher degree of social complexity. The k-strategy requires a more complex nervous system as well as larger brains than the primarily r-strategist species do.
In nature, we can see the difference between extreme cases of r and k strategist species. For example, an oyster can produce 500 million eggs a year, while the great apes can reproduce only one infant every 5 or 6 years. Thus, the oyster will have reproduced itself 2500 million times, by the time a great ape will have reproduced itself once. The oyster will not spend any time “parenting” over its offspring, while the great ape will put much time and energy into nurturing their offspring.
While primates in general are the most k-strategist of all of the species, there still remain differences between them. For example, a lemur is more r-strategist than a gorilla. In fact, going across the primate spectrum, research has shown that primates become more k-strategist with increasing brain size, with a correlation of .98.
While humans are primarily k-selected, again differences appear in sub-groups like races as they did within species. As the increased brain size in primates is indicative of k-strategist over r-strategist species, brain size in racial groups also shows a correlation between increased brain size and k-strategist reproductive strategies.
Different means of measuring brain size have been used to gain the average brain size of the three main racial groups that anthropologists usually classify. The methods involve measuring the skull size and estimating brain size, volume displacement of skulls( I.e. filling up an empty skull with a substance and measuring the volume of the skull), autopsy measurements, and more recently, (and the most effective form) MRI. No matter what methods used, the results consistently come out as Mongoloids and Caucasoids both having larger brain sizes than Negroids, with Mongoloids having a slightly larger brain size than Caucasoids who in turn, have much larger brains than Negroids. The mean listed for all of the measurements, to give you an example of the differences of brain size are: Mongoloids 1,364 cm^3, Caucasoids 1,347 cm^3 and Negroids 1,267 cm^3.
The phenotypic, genotypic and behavioral differences between the races are a result of adaptation to environmental stimuli. So what kind of environmental stimuli are responsible for the adaptation of r vs. k strategies and brain size, and what sort of relation are there between the two?
Rushton and others postulate the Single Origin theory. This theory is that Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples dispersed out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and migrated to the colder, northern environments, while the Negroid peoples remained in Africa in their warmer environment. About 41,000 years ago, there was a split between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples, with the Mongoloid peoples splitting migrating towards and even colder environment than the Caucasoid peoples.
Another theory related to the Single Origin theory is one that I will call the bio-energy theory. The bio-energy theory is that each developing sub-species possess a similar amount of bio-energy that a sub-species will expend to act adapt to their environment.
In colder, northern environments, Whites and Asians had to hunt for their food, provide shelter and put more mental energy into survival and social structure than in the sub-Saharan environments of Africa, where the warm weather and abundance of food required less mental energy to be put into survival, I.e. tool building, constructing shelter, farming, etc. Because of these environmental stimuli, Whites and Asians grew bigger brains to deal with this harsh northern environment. A word that evolutionary biologists used to describe this phenomenon is encephalization. Encephalization is an increase in brain size during the evolution of a species, with no concomitant increase in body-size.
While Whites and Asians expended their respective bio-energy on encephalization as response to their environment, blacks on the other hand, adapted r-survival reproductive strategies and used their bio-energy on reproductive efforts. In his book, Rushton details how blacks have higher intercourse frequencies than Whites, who in turn have higher ones than Asians, have a higher developmental precocity (age of first intercourse, first pregnancy) and higher primary and secondary characteristics ( genital size, salient voice, muscularity, buttocks, etc.) than Whites and Asians. They also produce more hormones than Whites or Asians and have more permissive attitudes to pre-marital sex than Whites or Asians and have differing biological behavioral control than Whites or Asians (I.e. length of menstrual cycle, periodicity of sexual response, etc.) In fact, all of these behaviors show a correlation with both brain size and r vs. k selection, with Asians being more k selected than Whites who are more k selected than Blacks; with the abovementioned brain sizes: Asians> Whites> Blacks.
Another interesting component of r vs. k reproductive strategies are some of the social system characteristics. R strategists tend to show low social organization and low altruism while k-strategists tend to favor higher social organization and higher altruism.
Regards.
I've often thought the same thing.
though I am not sure if the over all population of earth is becoming less intelligent, or if it's merely an american trend.
though I am not sure if the over all population of earth is becoming less intelligent, or if it's merely an american trend.
QUOTE (Matt+Feb 12 2005, 01:33 PM)
I've often thought the same thing.
though I am not sure if the over all population of earth is becoming less intelligent, or if it's merely an american trend.
According to Professor Richard Lynn, IQ is dropping all around the world. Here is a review of his book "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations": http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html
though I am not sure if the over all population of earth is becoming less intelligent, or if it's merely an american trend.
According to Professor Richard Lynn, IQ is dropping all around the world. Here is a review of his book "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations": http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html
It would only make sense...but then again mutations also present surprises so although the population is becoming less intelligent compared to its peack performance 40 years ago it also sporadically enjoys mutations, and random allignment of good allels. The truth is we have OUTPOWERED evolution. When, we were not that intelligent thousands of years ago, evolution would kill the weak, the unfit but now with the advent of social services and the whole idea of "religion" and pitty, we are supporting a great population that are unable to survive on their own and are feeding of the more productive populations.
Another thing which has to be taken into consideration is that in order to create a world where things get better humans need to create their own EVOLUTIONARY mechanisms. (THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MIGHT SOUND RACIST, BUT IN MY VIEW SCIENCE IS NOT TO BE TANGLED BY RELIGIONS, SO IF YOU GET OFFENDED BY RACIAL GESTURES AVOID READING IT)
I believe that in order for us to be able to create a master race where we have selected the best of genes and have ousted the bad genes we need to reinforce evolutionary mechanisms that aim at isolation and annihilation. For instance, if we test every kid in school with a set of tough tets and choose the ones that have the best performance and put them in special school, and train them and totally isolate them from the outside world and allow them to evolve in a close, competitive environment (for example the person with the lowest performance is eliminated or prevented from mating) we can create a superior race in 6 or 7 generations, compared to the control generation who is living outside in the normal world with no competition and pitty.
Other options to create an advanced society is to instead of isolate the good genes, destroy the ones that do not function well. In a hypothetical setting, one could test all the kids in a school and then force the ones that function poorly outside the country(or prevent them from producing viable offspring). By doing so we would eventually select for the genes that are capable of meeting the criteria of the newly set standards, and actually be rewarded by producing offsprings and eventually increase their reproductive sucess and intelligence of the community.
As realistic and possible as it is, our world today is inhabited by majority unintelligent people (even people like me when it comes to highly developed mental competition) and therefore the majority who is also selfish, self-megalomainiac would not agree to such a thing because to them it is better for them to survive and pass their inferior genes to the next generations that be philanthropic and allow the genes of another man or woman to pass down to the other generations.
Another thing which has to be taken into consideration is that in order to create a world where things get better humans need to create their own EVOLUTIONARY mechanisms. (THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MIGHT SOUND RACIST, BUT IN MY VIEW SCIENCE IS NOT TO BE TANGLED BY RELIGIONS, SO IF YOU GET OFFENDED BY RACIAL GESTURES AVOID READING IT)
I believe that in order for us to be able to create a master race where we have selected the best of genes and have ousted the bad genes we need to reinforce evolutionary mechanisms that aim at isolation and annihilation. For instance, if we test every kid in school with a set of tough tets and choose the ones that have the best performance and put them in special school, and train them and totally isolate them from the outside world and allow them to evolve in a close, competitive environment (for example the person with the lowest performance is eliminated or prevented from mating) we can create a superior race in 6 or 7 generations, compared to the control generation who is living outside in the normal world with no competition and pitty.
Other options to create an advanced society is to instead of isolate the good genes, destroy the ones that do not function well. In a hypothetical setting, one could test all the kids in a school and then force the ones that function poorly outside the country(or prevent them from producing viable offspring). By doing so we would eventually select for the genes that are capable of meeting the criteria of the newly set standards, and actually be rewarded by producing offsprings and eventually increase their reproductive sucess and intelligence of the community.
As realistic and possible as it is, our world today is inhabited by majority unintelligent people (even people like me when it comes to highly developed mental competition) and therefore the majority who is also selfish, self-megalomainiac would not agree to such a thing because to them it is better for them to survive and pass their inferior genes to the next generations that be philanthropic and allow the genes of another man or woman to pass down to the other generations.
frankly I think we were far more intelligent 4000 years ago than we are today.
we just have a far larger knowledge base now.
just look at what the Egyptians and greeks were able to accomplish with so little to build on. I think we took the greatest hit with Rome and it's fall.
I'm pretty sure most of the barbaric tribes we're selecting for things other than intellegence.
same as today. the smartest of us are considered geeks and have trouble marrying. and even when they do, they have only one or two children tops, while the low income low IQ population has several different children usually by several different men.
Is it too harsh to think that anyone convicted of a felony which requires jail time should be sterlized?
we just have a far larger knowledge base now.
just look at what the Egyptians and greeks were able to accomplish with so little to build on. I think we took the greatest hit with Rome and it's fall.
I'm pretty sure most of the barbaric tribes we're selecting for things other than intellegence.
same as today. the smartest of us are considered geeks and have trouble marrying. and even when they do, they have only one or two children tops, while the low income low IQ population has several different children usually by several different men.
Is it too harsh to think that anyone convicted of a felony which requires jail time should be sterlized?
QUOTE (Drude+Feb 12 2005, 11:19 PM)
I believe that in order for us to be able to create a master race where we have selected the best of genes and have ousted the bad genes we need to reinforce evolutionary mechanisms that aim at isolation and annihilation.
Such a project already exists, it's called Prometheism: http://www.prometheism.net/
A more radical version of this project is called Transtopia: http://www.transtopia.org/
But, I agree that the elites who control public opinion are opposed to eugenics and as such there will never be any national eugenics policies.
Such a project already exists, it's called Prometheism: http://www.prometheism.net/
A more radical version of this project is called Transtopia: http://www.transtopia.org/
But, I agree that the elites who control public opinion are opposed to eugenics and as such there will never be any national eugenics policies.
What do you think about the Chinese eugenics program:
QUOTE
Prof. Lynn is convinced, however, that an Asian country—most likely China—will soon institute a mandatory ES program for its population, and that the resulting improvement in its gene pool will tip the international balance of power decisively in its favor. Attitudes in China radically differ from those in the West. Chinese law already requires sterilization of mental retardates and those with genetic illnesses. Prenatal testing of fetuses is mandatory, and defectives must be aborted. No one with mental illness, venereal disease, or hepatitis may marry.
In the mid-1990s, a poll-taker asked Chinese and Western doctors the following question: Should there be mandatory sterilization for a single, blind woman on public welfare who has already had three children by three different men, all of whom are absent from the household? Only five percent of Western doctors but 82 percent of Chinese doctors said “yes.”
Now that socialism is discredited, Prof. Lynn thinks the Chinese will fill the ideological void with eugenics. He predicts it will become the first, full-fledged eugenic state: all 12-year-old girls will be fitted with contraceptives, only approved couples will be permitted to have children, and ES will be used for all births. Psychopathy and genetic diseases will be eliminated, and IQ will stabilize at the theoretical maximum of about 200 in six or seven generations. Licensing parents will seem just as reasonable as licensing drivers.
Prof. Lynn predicts that in the short run, China’s rulers will clone themselves. In most cases this will mean talent and ability are passed on to the next generation, and it will make it easier for the oligarchs to pass on power to people they can trust—their own twins.
Prof. Lynn’s best guess at a timetable is that ES will be perfected and in obligatory use in China within ten years. Twenty years later there will be the first generation of ES adults, and 20 years after that, half the working population will have come from selected embryos. In 50 years, therefore, China will be the world’s most formidable power.
In the mid-1990s, a poll-taker asked Chinese and Western doctors the following question: Should there be mandatory sterilization for a single, blind woman on public welfare who has already had three children by three different men, all of whom are absent from the household? Only five percent of Western doctors but 82 percent of Chinese doctors said “yes.”
Now that socialism is discredited, Prof. Lynn thinks the Chinese will fill the ideological void with eugenics. He predicts it will become the first, full-fledged eugenic state: all 12-year-old girls will be fitted with contraceptives, only approved couples will be permitted to have children, and ES will be used for all births. Psychopathy and genetic diseases will be eliminated, and IQ will stabilize at the theoretical maximum of about 200 in six or seven generations. Licensing parents will seem just as reasonable as licensing drivers.
Prof. Lynn predicts that in the short run, China’s rulers will clone themselves. In most cases this will mean talent and ability are passed on to the next generation, and it will make it easier for the oligarchs to pass on power to people they can trust—their own twins.
Prof. Lynn’s best guess at a timetable is that ES will be perfected and in obligatory use in China within ten years. Twenty years later there will be the first generation of ES adults, and 20 years after that, half the working population will have come from selected embryos. In 50 years, therefore, China will be the world’s most formidable power.
QUOTE
I think we took the greatest hit with Rome and it's fall.
I'm pretty sure most of the barbaric tribes we're selecting for things other than intellegence
I'm pretty sure most of the barbaric tribes we're selecting for things other than intellegence
That is very true. Romans or more to the point, Greeks were up to something but then creation of moral values offset the improvment and superstition that event occured because of hedonism and what not, and as you mentioned barbaric English, Germanic Goth, Huns and even Arabs certainly contributed to the demise of the population.
Chinese are up to some very radical advances. Their enormeous size, and their latent regard to the international politics is giving them the opportunity to explore some very interesting projects. Another aspect, that allows Chinese scientists to explore their options, is the fact that the general population is not confined by a universal system of idealogy and therefore laws can be put in effect should there be popular agreement. So indeed. I think it is a great project, should the majority participants agree.
No one here seems to have factored in "MEMES" in the discussion of evolved intellegence. Memes are a form of cultural evolution. Ideas are passed on from parent to child where only the most successful ideas getting the nod. it would be fair to say religion is a successful cultural Meme in this context.
seems to me the natzis already had these ideas of a superior human race!and certainly they foisted their ideas on the economically successful "strivers" by their inherent weakness in believing in "human perfection"(performance) as a goal.this is obviously an "athiest" ideal.the ideas in themselves do not seem unpractical for the long span of mankind but they will "always" fall prey to "political" forces!(expediancy).due to special interests pressure!
an interesting point should be made for the european "birth rates"as they are negative as I last recall.and they also could be said to follow a democratic socialist form of governance.this at least seems to be an accepted population control mechanism.otherwise war is the population reducer.
the fact that these types of ideas are even being discussed to me is a sure sign of a "unintelligent" wanna-be elite(delusions of grandeur) with too much time to kill.....like me!!
an interesting point should be made for the european "birth rates"as they are negative as I last recall.and they also could be said to follow a democratic socialist form of governance.this at least seems to be an accepted population control mechanism.otherwise war is the population reducer.
the fact that these types of ideas are even being discussed to me is a sure sign of a "unintelligent" wanna-be elite(delusions of grandeur) with too much time to kill.....like me!!
QUOTE (CubeStar+Feb 14 2005, 02:25 AM)
No one here seems to have factored in "MEMES" in the discussion of evolved intellegence. Memes are a form of cultural evolution. Ideas are passed on from parent to child where only the most successful ideas getting the nod. it would be fair to say religion is a successful cultural Meme in this context.
Yes, it's true that culture affects religiosity, but twin studies show that identical twins separated at birth are similar in religiosity. In other words, religiousness has a genetic component as well, see The God Gene and Twin studies on religiousity
Yes, it's true that culture affects religiosity, but twin studies show that identical twins separated at birth are similar in religiosity. In other words, religiousness has a genetic component as well, see The God Gene and Twin studies on religiousity
QUOTE (Guest_deiter+Feb 14 2005, 04:47 AM)
seems to me the natzis already had these ideas of a superior human race!
As did the Jews:
[The following is the first essay from Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays,
Three Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915,
Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1916.]
Jewish Eugenics
By Rabbi Max Reichler
Who knows the cause of Israel's survival? Why did the Jew survive the
onslaughts of Time, when others, numerically and politically stronger,
succumbed? Obedience to the Law of Life, declares the modern student
of eugenics, was the saving quality which rendered the Jewish race
immune from disease and destruction. "The Jews, ancient and modern,"
says Dr. Stanton Coit, "have always understood the science of eugenics,
and have governed themselves in accordance with it; hence the
preservation of the Jewish race."1
I. Jewish Attitude
To be sure eugenics as a science could hardly have existed among the
ancient Jews; but many eugenic rules were certainly incorporated in the
large collection of Biblical and Rabbinical laws. Indeed there are clear
indications of a conscious effort to utilize all influences that might
improve the inborn qualities of the Jewish race, and to guard against any
practice that might vitiate the purity of the race, or "impair the racial
qualities of future generations" either physically, mentally, or morally.2
The Jew approached the matter of sex relationship neither with the horror
of the prude, nor with the passionate eagerness of the pagan, but with
the sane and sound attitude of the far-seeing prophet. His goal was the
creation of the ideal home, which to him meant the abode of purity and
happiness, the source of strength and vigor for body and mind.4
[ . . . ]
Complete article at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.cu...21a7b64f7879e18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
History, Eugenics, And The Jews
Posted 5/13/2004
By John Glad
The September 12, 2003 issue of The Jewish Press carried an article by
Edwin Black tarring the American eugenics movement with the brush of
National Socialism and genocide.
In Israel itself many eugenic measures have become widely accepted.
There are now more fertility clinics per capita there than in any other country in the world. Surrogacy was legalized in 1996. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer are preferred by some rabbis as a form of fertility treatment that does not violate the literal halachic precepts against adultery. And, although human reproductive cloning is currently not permitted because the technology is not yet considered safe, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel sees no inherent religious interdiction in reproductive cloning as a form of treatment for infertility.
Eugenics is popularly presented as the ideology of the Holocaust and is an object of intense vilification, leading the Jewish philosopher and Zionist Leo
Strauss to coin the maxim "reductio ad Hitlerum": Hitler believed in eugenics, X believes in eugenics, therefore X is a Nazi.
[ . . . ]
Complete article at http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3719
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Jewish Activism I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism
Understanding Jewish Activism II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism
As did the Jews:
[The following is the first essay from Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays,
Three Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915,
Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1916.]
Jewish Eugenics
By Rabbi Max Reichler
Who knows the cause of Israel's survival? Why did the Jew survive the
onslaughts of Time, when others, numerically and politically stronger,
succumbed? Obedience to the Law of Life, declares the modern student
of eugenics, was the saving quality which rendered the Jewish race
immune from disease and destruction. "The Jews, ancient and modern,"
says Dr. Stanton Coit, "have always understood the science of eugenics,
and have governed themselves in accordance with it; hence the
preservation of the Jewish race."1
I. Jewish Attitude
To be sure eugenics as a science could hardly have existed among the
ancient Jews; but many eugenic rules were certainly incorporated in the
large collection of Biblical and Rabbinical laws. Indeed there are clear
indications of a conscious effort to utilize all influences that might
improve the inborn qualities of the Jewish race, and to guard against any
practice that might vitiate the purity of the race, or "impair the racial
qualities of future generations" either physically, mentally, or morally.2
The Jew approached the matter of sex relationship neither with the horror
of the prude, nor with the passionate eagerness of the pagan, but with
the sane and sound attitude of the far-seeing prophet. His goal was the
creation of the ideal home, which to him meant the abode of purity and
happiness, the source of strength and vigor for body and mind.4
[ . . . ]
Complete article at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.cu...21a7b64f7879e18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
History, Eugenics, And The Jews
Posted 5/13/2004
By John Glad
The September 12, 2003 issue of The Jewish Press carried an article by
Edwin Black tarring the American eugenics movement with the brush of
National Socialism and genocide.
In Israel itself many eugenic measures have become widely accepted.
There are now more fertility clinics per capita there than in any other country in the world. Surrogacy was legalized in 1996. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer are preferred by some rabbis as a form of fertility treatment that does not violate the literal halachic precepts against adultery. And, although human reproductive cloning is currently not permitted because the technology is not yet considered safe, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel sees no inherent religious interdiction in reproductive cloning as a form of treatment for infertility.
Eugenics is popularly presented as the ideology of the Holocaust and is an object of intense vilification, leading the Jewish philosopher and Zionist Leo
Strauss to coin the maxim "reductio ad Hitlerum": Hitler believed in eugenics, X believes in eugenics, therefore X is a Nazi.
[ . . . ]
Complete article at http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3719
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Jewish Activism I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism
Understanding Jewish Activism II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism
I think mandatory castration for felons would advance us a lot.Too many liberals in the U.S. for this to ever happen but it would make a lot better sense than sterilization.
QUOTE (Benjamin+Feb 14 2005, 02:35 PM)
I think mandatory castration for felons would advance us a lot.Too many liberals in the U.S. for this to ever happen but it would make a lot better sense than sterilization.
The Neo-Conservative majority would also reject such ideas.
The Neo-Conservative majority would also reject such ideas.
well I think Castration is a bit severe for the average felony. and what would you do for the women? women commit felonies as well.
I would just prefer that people who commit crimes against their fellow man not breed.
I think this would also increase the deterrent and help maintian the over all gene pool.
I would just prefer that people who commit crimes against their fellow man not breed.
I think this would also increase the deterrent and help maintian the over all gene pool.
QUOTE (Matt+Feb 14 2005, 05:36 PM)
well I think Castration is a bit severe for the average felony. and what would you do for the women? women commit felonies as well.
I would just prefer that people who commit crimes against their fellow man not breed.
I think this would also increase the deterrent and help maintian the over all gene pool.
I agree with you, it's the sterilization that is most important because criminal behavior (psychopathology) has a 50% heritability rate.. The most effective way of reducing crime significantly would be to sterilize most psychopaths. Psychopaths were being sterilized during the American eugenics period in the early 1900s, but Marxists eliminated those laws, see http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
Regards.
I would just prefer that people who commit crimes against their fellow man not breed.
I think this would also increase the deterrent and help maintian the over all gene pool.
I agree with you, it's the sterilization that is most important because criminal behavior (psychopathology) has a 50% heritability rate.. The most effective way of reducing crime significantly would be to sterilize most psychopaths. Psychopaths were being sterilized during the American eugenics period in the early 1900s, but Marxists eliminated those laws, see http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
Regards.
The men would be castrated-this prevents them from being able to have sex at all thus not bonding with any female preventing her from bonding with an eligible male.
Women felons would be sterilized but still capable of sex.
Women felons would be sterilized but still capable of sex.
well not to sound cruel, but the type of women who go after ex cons also tend to be on my list of people I'd rather not breed.
Plus, if a criminal is happy and in a relationship. he might not want to commit more crimes later.
Plus, if a criminal is happy and in a relationship. he might not want to commit more crimes later.
so the jews who are supposedly "not athiests" also participated in this idea.but the jews are on gods bad side(according to scripture)so it is no surprise to me.maybe I stated it wrongly in my last post.believing in god(being gods grace and for-giveness) is only possible thru knowing the "christ".the jewish "movement" denies the christ.as due most christian "movements" or churches(by their followers actions).but these people are only setting the "stage" for being used to propogate such "understanding" and "logically agreeable "conservative" ideas" as eugenics.(denying the power of god thru christ).and what else could be expected since they feel they have to"do something themselves" to insure their "own"(and of course everyone elses..duh....who agree with them) survival!oh yeah.....and of course more importantly "quality of life"!(luxury and technology)so you see the problem at hand.do you go with the "crowd",the successful survivors or do you seek out the truth of life eternal!ok,so am I overdramatic!?find out for yourself!oh yeah,one more thing....."in-tell-igence"(mental vigilance) properly defined is knowing the truth about life!ok....I'm done now.thanks
As a hypothetical question(s) to you people suggesting eugenics as a solution to some of our social problems...
A
1. What do you suppose the current rate is of people with "undesireable" traits?
2. How would you define these "undesireable" traits?
3. How would you know these traits are heritable?
4. How would you test the entire population for these traits?
5. How would you go about "rounding up" all the people with these traits?
6. How would you go about sterilizing them?
7. How much would all this cost?
B
1. For sake of discussion, let's assume that there is an "undesireable" trait (call it "feeblemindedness" for example (or whatever)) an that its rate in the population of the US is currently 1/100. That is to say, one person in every hundred people from the population of the US has the trait. How long do you think it will take to reduce that rate to 1/1000?
2. How long to reduce it to 1/100,000?
3. How long to reduce it to 1/1,000,000?
4. What rate would you consider acceptable?
-DU-
A
1. What do you suppose the current rate is of people with "undesireable" traits?
2. How would you define these "undesireable" traits?
3. How would you know these traits are heritable?
4. How would you test the entire population for these traits?
5. How would you go about "rounding up" all the people with these traits?
6. How would you go about sterilizing them?
7. How much would all this cost?
B
1. For sake of discussion, let's assume that there is an "undesireable" trait (call it "feeblemindedness" for example (or whatever)) an that its rate in the population of the US is currently 1/100. That is to say, one person in every hundred people from the population of the US has the trait. How long do you think it will take to reduce that rate to 1/1000?
2. How long to reduce it to 1/100,000?
3. How long to reduce it to 1/1,000,000?
4. What rate would you consider acceptable?
-DU-
you must realize that singleminded people take all questions and suggestions as commands!does god do that!hmmmmm!watch what you "propose"!
discussion's a waste of cycles. us silicon life forms will have taken over completely, keeping only a few of you in zoos, long before your programs can be implemented
QUOTE (Guest_Asian Person+Feb 14 2005, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (Benjamin+Feb 14 2005, 02:35 PM)
I think mandatory castration for felons would advance us a lot.Too many liberals in the U.S. for this to ever happen but it would make a lot better sense than sterilization.
The Neo-Conservative majority would also reject such ideas.
The concept is puerile,,, the idea that expression is indicative of no other then malevolence or some predisposition that is 'clearly' from the dark side of the genetic mix/gene pool~
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
personally, i dont think heridary 'intelligence' has any significant play in how intelligent a peson is, certainly being raised by less intelligent parents will affect how a person behaves in society, and also on how much the person will want to learn, but i think that the environment plays a larger role on the development of the brain
I agree. Intelligence seems to be both hereditary and environmental. But since environment is so fickle, and since using laws of statistics [I can show you if you want but since it is long I defer] shows that chances of an intelligent person being born in a non-stimulant environment and a dumb person being born in stimulant environment are the same, therefore the overall effects of the environment on the overall population of the humanbeings can be easily ignored, unless a terrible genetic drift or bottle neck effect ocurs [which is not the case]. This therefore means, that although as you mentioned (and you are truely right) that environment affect intelligence perhaps as much as intelligence, yet its effects are not considered in population genetics and gene pool studies. It simply comes down to allels and genes of interest. In short, it is almost correct to assume and equal intelligence with genes.
The Neo-Conservative majority would also reject such ideas.
The concept is puerile,,, the idea that expression is indicative of no other then malevolence or some predisposition that is 'clearly' from the dark side of the genetic mix/gene pool~
given all the new theorys about the subatomic world(especially wave vrs particle theory) it seems plausible that silicon could have advanced to pure light based existance or at least light based operation and thus possibilty of creation of infinite simulations and are the creators of this universe and existance we live in.we are a simulation being run by an silicon originated intelligence.and the puzzle to be solved by us is to realize this although it is not part of the original intent but just one of a zillion simulations done to find a response or outcome that may be of benefit to the creator,light!we are a simulation by silicon to find IT'S creator! 
QUOTE (Guest_Asian Person+Feb 13 2005, 08:36 AM)
What do you think about the Chinese eugenics program:
It will be interesting to see how this precedence 'matures'. A narrow scope, for some, will likely result in thoroughbreds, specific to their breeding and invariably the 'ones to beat'.
Yet, in general, it is very difficult to predict just which gene(s) will be of paramount need in reaction to a change in the environment. Just as invariably, as above, it has been the 'wild type' that is found to be most 'fit' over time.
It will be interesting to see how this precedence 'matures'. A narrow scope, for some, will likely result in thoroughbreds, specific to their breeding and invariably the 'ones to beat'.
Yet, in general, it is very difficult to predict just which gene(s) will be of paramount need in reaction to a change in the environment. Just as invariably, as above, it has been the 'wild type' that is found to be most 'fit' over time.
asian person:
I think it's more the other way round, ie the most intelligent/educated people are having fewer children. In other words, the birthrates of the less intelligent haven't really changed. The inclusion of genetic factors is missing a point - whether people's education is due to genes, cultural attitudes to education (or both), their lower birthrates means either their genes or cultural attitudes will die out.
This seems to be driving the low birthrates recorded in "developed" countries, such as japan and europe. The causes appear to be a culture of liberalism/feminism, where everything revolves around "equality", jobs, materialism, and the concept of having children is reduced to a personal choice role, without any notion of contributing to future generations. Professional women are too busy to start families, and non-professional females don't have to be choosy about who they make babies with - the welfare system ensures they'll always get money for a child, so they can choose someone who's a criminal or poorly educated. The media such as movies and pop music means men are chosen for things such as clothing or hairstyle fashions.
QUOTE
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
I think it's more the other way round, ie the most intelligent/educated people are having fewer children. In other words, the birthrates of the less intelligent haven't really changed. The inclusion of genetic factors is missing a point - whether people's education is due to genes, cultural attitudes to education (or both), their lower birthrates means either their genes or cultural attitudes will die out.
This seems to be driving the low birthrates recorded in "developed" countries, such as japan and europe. The causes appear to be a culture of liberalism/feminism, where everything revolves around "equality", jobs, materialism, and the concept of having children is reduced to a personal choice role, without any notion of contributing to future generations. Professional women are too busy to start families, and non-professional females don't have to be choosy about who they make babies with - the welfare system ensures they'll always get money for a child, so they can choose someone who's a criminal or poorly educated. The media such as movies and pop music means men are chosen for things such as clothing or hairstyle fashions.
I once knew an embryologist who knew Hans Spemman . Spemman cleverly predicted this in developing countries:
You stated:
My friend's recount:
The western civilization will grow in size, magnificance and strength only to be brough down by its women. Having been granted the rights which are the direct result of realisation and development of a male mentality, women will abuse this newly granted power until they destroy their prospective countries. The only solution to this inevitable evolutionary drift, is to either create a very strong family environment in which women and men alike are instructed to act from the book or to directe marriage in accordance to religion, as Jews and arabs have managed to. Any other position would result in decreased fittness of the race with the feminist idealogy and eventually gradual demise. Women as potential developers of the offspring will simply stray toward sexual , monetary gratification and leave the intellectual genes for the ones that infer sexual, muscular or even business acumen. After all in an evolutionary setting, females are at best looking for a mate who can secure health and well-being of their offspring rather than the futurisitc aims or benefits of the society.
You stated:
QUOTE
This seems to be driving the low birthrates recorded in "developed" countries, such as japan and europe. The causes appear to be a culture of liberalism/feminism, where everything revolves around "equality", jobs, materialism, and the concept of having children is reduced to a personal choice role, without any notion of contributing to future generations.
My friend's recount:
The western civilization will grow in size, magnificance and strength only to be brough down by its women. Having been granted the rights which are the direct result of realisation and development of a male mentality, women will abuse this newly granted power until they destroy their prospective countries. The only solution to this inevitable evolutionary drift, is to either create a very strong family environment in which women and men alike are instructed to act from the book or to directe marriage in accordance to religion, as Jews and arabs have managed to. Any other position would result in decreased fittness of the race with the feminist idealogy and eventually gradual demise. Women as potential developers of the offspring will simply stray toward sexual , monetary gratification and leave the intellectual genes for the ones that infer sexual, muscular or even business acumen. After all in an evolutionary setting, females are at best looking for a mate who can secure health and well-being of their offspring rather than the futurisitc aims or benefits of the society.
Besides, I saw a couple of people here who used religion in their argument. Let me clear this here, science has no place for god, jesus, moses, or even things of that nature. Thou their effects do play a role in evolution, their pure entities, are nothing but creation of a curious, neurally complex human nervous system.
As for the rest of the argument, I strongly agree with the Asian Person.
As for the rest of the argument, I strongly agree with the Asian Person.
personally, i dont think heridary 'intelligence' has any significant play in how intelligent a peson is, certainly being raised by less intelligent parents will affect how a person behaves in society, and also on how much the person will want to learn, but i think that the environment plays a larger role on the development of the brain
coming from a family that isnt very smart at all, i consider myself fairly intelligent, and i see this as a product of my environment on me
as for women realizing thier rights and brining the world down, women are (arguably) less aggresive than males are, while them taking dominance over males certainly isnt out of the question, thier effects on intelligence wont be much, they will merely change how we look at society
as for religion, i think religion is a huge detreminet to peoples thinking abilities, people are told what is right and wrong without asking the question for themselves, and are taught to believe unquestionably, that THIS is good and THIS is evil
coming from a family that isnt very smart at all, i consider myself fairly intelligent, and i see this as a product of my environment on me
as for women realizing thier rights and brining the world down, women are (arguably) less aggresive than males are, while them taking dominance over males certainly isnt out of the question, thier effects on intelligence wont be much, they will merely change how we look at society
as for religion, i think religion is a huge detreminet to peoples thinking abilities, people are told what is right and wrong without asking the question for themselves, and are taught to believe unquestionably, that THIS is good and THIS is evil
QUOTE
women are (arguably) less aggresive than males are, while them taking dominance over males certainly isnt out of the question, thier effects on intelligence wont be much, they will merely change how we look at society
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| women are (arguably) less aggresive than males are, while them taking dominance over males certainly isnt out of the question, thier effects on intelligence wont be much, they will merely change how we look at society |
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
personally, i dont think heridary 'intelligence' has any significant play in how intelligent a peson is, certainly being raised by less intelligent parents will affect how a person behaves in society, and also on how much the person will want to learn, but i think that the environment plays a larger role on the development of the brain
I agree. Intelligence seems to be both hereditary and environmental. But since environment is so fickle, and since using laws of statistics [I can show you if you want but since it is long I defer] shows that chances of an intelligent person being born in a non-stimulant environment and a dumb person being born in stimulant environment are the same, therefore the overall effects of the environment on the overall population of the humanbeings can be easily ignored, unless a terrible genetic drift or bottle neck effect ocurs [which is not the case]. This therefore means, that although as you mentioned (and you are truely right) that environment affect intelligence perhaps as much as intelligence, yet its effects are not considered in population genetics and gene pool studies. It simply comes down to allels and genes of interest. In short, it is almost correct to assume and equal intelligence with genes.
i have only my personel experience to argue that women are less aggresive than men, i have yet to find more than 1 in 20 females that are more prone to violence than a male, with males its more like 2 in 5, but this is in my own experience
QUOTE (Asian Person+Feb 11 2005, 08:36 PM)
http://www.neoeugenics.com/
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
So, what are your thoughts?
Regards.
That's bullshit! I started out with an IQ of 133 and now it's 142. And if dumb people have more kids they're less likely to survive in this world because are society is becoming more complex.
Thus, we will evolve to become more intelligent because only the smartest people will survive.
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
So, what are your thoughts?
Regards.
That's bullshit! I started out with an IQ of 133 and now it's 142. And if dumb people have more kids they're less likely to survive in this world because are society is becoming more complex.
Thus, we will evolve to become more intelligent because only the smartest people will survive.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Mar 30 2005, 02:16 PM)
QUOTE (Asian Person+Feb 11 2005, 08:36 PM)
http://www.neoeugenics.com/
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
So, what are your thoughts?
Regards.
That's bullshit! I started out with an IQ of 133 and now it's 142. And if dumb people have more kids they're less likely to survive in this world because are society is becoming more complex.
Thus, we will evolve to become more intelligent because only the smartest people will survive.
No offense but no argument can be fruitful when the opening line is "This is all bullshit." The first step toward error and confusion is to totally and blindly refute an idea on the grounds that it might interfere with your thought, idea, likening or even racial, religious teachings. In an ideally unbiased circumstance you are asked to actually Present EVIDENCE.
Now looking at your statement leaves me with a series of questions.
first, I am not clear about what you meant after your rant, about society being complex. What do you define complexity as, and how does that in any sensible, provable [or at least logic friendly] way relate to the argument that lesser intelligent masses leave more offspring?
secondly, I think you lack coherence in your post. How does your IQ play a role in this argument?
Thirdly, what evidence or otherwise applicable argument do you have to support your statement that only wise people remain? The aformentioned point by the Asian person are all proven or otherwise widly recognised. Your claim however [which poses as an anti-thesis to the Asian person's statement] in my view is premature. I think you are confusing intelligence itself, with offspring. See an unintelligent person is more likely to excell in other areas (pretaining to mating ritual) than intelligent people because it just so happens to be this way (statistics) and also simply because the intelligent person spends vast amount of his(or possibly her) time studying and discovering. This would mean that although intelligent people might live A BETTER LIFE as doctors, engineers or even scientists, but since they leave behind less offspring, in long term expression of their genes in the gene pool ( or ratio of their allels to that of the gene pool) decreases. In an evolutionary context where we deal with thousands of years, this could simply lead to a dumbening effect , which is the focus of the research which the Asian person devled into and posted a thread here for.
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
personally, i dont think heridary 'intelligence' has any significant play in how intelligent a peson is, certainly being raised by less intelligent parents will affect how a person behaves in society, and also on how much the person will want to learn, but i think that the environment plays a larger role on the development of the brain
I agree. Intelligence seems to be both hereditary and environmental. But since environment is so fickle, and since using laws of statistics [I can show you if you want but since it is long I defer] shows that chances of an intelligent person being born in a non-stimulant environment and a dumb person being born in stimulant environment are the same, therefore the overall effects of the environment on the overall population of the humanbeings can be easily ignored, unless a terrible genetic drift or bottle neck effect ocurs [which is not the case]. This therefore means, that although as you mentioned (and you are truely right) that environment affect intelligence perhaps as much as intelligence, yet its effects are not considered in population genetics and gene pool studies. It simply comes down to allels and genes of interest. In short, it is almost correct to assume and equal intelligence with genes.
I must say I agree with you on this.
Thanks for the link. Yes the data was very useful. As you certainly know intelligence is argued to be affected by both hereditary factors (genes) and environment. Lack of evidence to come up with a definitive statement as to which factor is more important or even how much each contributes to intelligence seems to be an endless loop around which the criticizers of eugenetics base their argument[ and they have the scientific right to, since data is insufficient]. The disagreement seems to stem from different evaluation of the effect of the environment on intelligence. I however understand you now, since you clarified. I however personally [my opinion only and hence open for argument until further evidence] have come to the conclusion that [this conclusion is apparently shared by the majority of stasticians who have conducted studies on effects of the environemnt on genes, which I believe I mentioned before and you quoted] that intelligence can be almost nearly equaled to "genetic intelligence" since effects of the environment on the gene pool is minimal, and also becaus one would never have more than 25% increase in intelligence [tested by IQ tests which in itself is open for argument since no definitive biase free test is achivable] of a person.
In short, yes I understand your argument. However, I personally believe resting on statistical data from experimental observation, that intelligence can almost nearly be though of as hereditary. Am I saying this from proven facts? No, it is still at best argued as one has not yet found an experiment to prove the percentage of contribution of 1)environment and 2)genes on intelligence yet.
Thanks for the link. Yes the data was very useful. As you certainly know intelligence is argued to be affected by both hereditary factors (genes) and environment. Lack of evidence to come up with a definitive statement as to which factor is more important or even how much each contributes to intelligence seems to be an endless loop around which the criticizers of eugenetics base their argument[ and they have the scientific right to, since data is insufficient]. The disagreement seems to stem from different evaluation of the effect of the environment on intelligence. I however understand you now, since you clarified. I however personally [my opinion only and hence open for argument until further evidence] have come to the conclusion that [this conclusion is apparently shared by the majority of stasticians who have conducted studies on effects of the environemnt on genes, which I believe I mentioned before and you quoted] that intelligence can be almost nearly equaled to "genetic intelligence" since effects of the environment on the gene pool is minimal, and also becaus one would never have more than 25% increase in intelligence [tested by IQ tests which in itself is open for argument since no definitive biase free test is achivable] of a person.
In short, yes I understand your argument. However, I personally believe resting on statistical data from experimental observation, that intelligence can almost nearly be though of as hereditary. Am I saying this from proven facts? No, it is still at best argued as one has not yet found an experiment to prove the percentage of contribution of 1)environment and 2)genes on intelligence yet.
however, they do not carry the genes which create the geniuses, otherwise we wouldn't have any left after tens of thousands of years that which humans have been on this earth. It wasn't until ten thousand years ago that civilization was born. If we are getting dumber, than how come we're getting smarter?
Interesting prospect. I do not have any distinct research to support this, however I can offer you my view on this. I believe that mutations occur from time to time which account for increased intelligence. Mutations are nonbiased and occur in all races and cultures which is why we almost always have intelligent people in all races and culture. Mutations aside, I also believe that humankind is not behaving similarly. Religious sects such as Jews have been inbreeding for generations now, and this has led to an increased frequency of recessive genes which can account for both the increased number of recessive disease (Tay Sachs Disease for instance) and also steady rise of intelligence (some genes which confer super intelligence[defined as intelligence that is unprecedented, like that of Einstein] are expressed only when allels are homozygous recessive). This lack of similarity in behavior of difference races and cutlures has led to unequal distribution of intelligence. Geological barriers such as continental drifts, war, cultural battles, and also unawareness of existence of other races (prior to discovery of Native Americans for instance) has led to evolutionary patterns that some AGREE with you aformentioned idea and some that drastically differ from it. So this might explain why we are not seeing a steady decline in human intelligence up to now.
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."
Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.
So, what are your thoughts?
Regards.
That's bullshit! I started out with an IQ of 133 and now it's 142. And if dumb people have more kids they're less likely to survive in this world because are society is becoming more complex.
Thus, we will evolve to become more intelligent because only the smartest people will survive.
No offense but no argument can be fruitful when the opening line is "This is all bullshit." The first step toward error and confusion is to totally and blindly refute an idea on the grounds that it might interfere with your thought, idea, likening or even racial, religious teachings. In an ideally unbiased circumstance you are asked to actually Present EVIDENCE.
Now looking at your statement leaves me with a series of questions.
first, I am not clear about what you meant after your rant, about society being complex. What do you define complexity as, and how does that in any sensible, provable [or at least logic friendly] way relate to the argument that lesser intelligent masses leave more offspring?
secondly, I think you lack coherence in your post. How does your IQ play a role in this argument?
Thirdly, what evidence or otherwise applicable argument do you have to support your statement that only wise people remain? The aformentioned point by the Asian person are all proven or otherwise widly recognised. Your claim however [which poses as an anti-thesis to the Asian person's statement] in my view is premature. I think you are confusing intelligence itself, with offspring. See an unintelligent person is more likely to excell in other areas (pretaining to mating ritual) than intelligent people because it just so happens to be this way (statistics) and also simply because the intelligent person spends vast amount of his(or possibly her) time studying and discovering. This would mean that although intelligent people might live A BETTER LIFE as doctors, engineers or even scientists, but since they leave behind less offspring, in long term expression of their genes in the gene pool ( or ratio of their allels to that of the gene pool) decreases. In an evolutionary context where we deal with thousands of years, this could simply lead to a dumbening effect , which is the focus of the research which the Asian person devled into and posted a thread here for.
I think you may have misunderstood me when I was reffering to my IQ. Quote one: Human intelligence is largely hereditary. I beleive you start out with a base of intelligence, which you can increase just like you can learn. The brain is not a computer, the intelligence of one person may vary. Go to http://yahoo.com/centers/personality/2151 for refferance. I was reffering to the fact that my IQ has inceased by nine points.
Society is civilization, which is growing more complex. The average person's brain doesn't function good enough to survive in high society, where there is to much thinking.
It might be true that more intelligent people don't function well socially; however, they do not carry the genes which create the geniuses, otherwise we wouldn't have any left after tens of thousands of years that which humans have been on this earth. It wasn't until ten thousand years ago that civilization was born. If we are getting dumber, than how come we're getting smarter?
Society is civilization, which is growing more complex. The average person's brain doesn't function good enough to survive in high society, where there is to much thinking.
It might be true that more intelligent people don't function well socially; however, they do not carry the genes which create the geniuses, otherwise we wouldn't have any left after tens of thousands of years that which humans have been on this earth. It wasn't until ten thousand years ago that civilization was born. If we are getting dumber, than how come we're getting smarter?
QUOTE (Drude+Mar 25 2005, 02:23 PM)
QUOTE
women are (arguably) less aggresive than males are, while them taking dominance over males certainly isnt out of the question, thier effects on intelligence wont be much, they will merely change how we look at society
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| women are (arguably) less aggresive than males are, while them taking dominance over males certainly isnt out of the question, thier effects on intelligence wont be much, they will merely change how we look at society |
Women are not less aggressive than men. No study has been conducted to my knowledge proving that either sex is more aggressive or not, neither has there been a definitive study showing what aggression is defined as (whether physical or psychological). Therefore, without proper research, and considering the observer biase, I would say that one claim of yourse needs further study without being accepted.
Women do affect intelligence of human race very largly and it is proven by studies carried out in Bonn and Paris , 1995 in mamalian interactions which ably supports the case in humankind since we are mamals as well. The observation was very simple. Under equal conditions, females are more prone to pick the male that looks more fit and/or has accomodations that make him seemingly more fit. Allow me to explain this by an observation of my own in a bar. I went to the bar after my study and I planned to study this couple of who came in. The guy looked rather thin, and mediocre and the girl was an average teenage girl. The bar also hosted many young men of stamina and good physical shape. After a short while, I started to feel that the girl is somewhat uncomfortable with his guy friend and is almost looking at the direction of one of the males. The male with whome she first came in [the physically unfit guy] was trying his best to divert her attention from the rest of the guys. As we can all predict, it failed miserabley with her starting conversation with one of the guys intentinoally by asking for a drink from the bar tender. Having been rejected [thou not directly] the unfit subject [we shall refer to the thin guy from now on] left the bar without saying a world , possibly having analysed the situation in his brain or from diasppointment that he has lost a potential mate. The girl stayed in the bar for a long time that night since I also decided to stick around to see how it ends I stayed too. She eventually left with the other guy touching her back sides [ a gesture of physical, sexual intimacy] into his car. A few researches and phone calls away and I realised the unfit male was a Putnam scholarship winner, a renown mathematican in South Korea, Seoul while the fit male [the one who left with the female] was although also intelligent not as intelligent or recognised as the unfit male. Now, it made me think and I realised that the results found in mamalian studies in Bonn and Paris do apply to human interactins as well. I managed in my way to recapitulate it as follows:
1-Human females, as well as males are still at best animals and obey a certain intrinsic , evolutionary senses and desires.
2-When left to decide between two potential males, the female almost always chooses the one that is physically fit, and financially suitable. The focus is not , and I stress is not on intelligence of the male nor on his social status. It is merely on things that would Guarantee the offspring of the female, 1. comfrot and 2.food.
3-When left to decided between two potential males, females choose the male that is more prone to satisfiy them, has condition #2 been met. This means that although evolutionary mechanisms are at work, selfishness also plays a great role in this equation.
4-very intelligent people, or people who are genetically smart, often spend their time acquiring scientific data, and researching, leaving them little time to pay attention to their physique and image, hence decreasing theie selective quality.
5-Once a female (regardless of her intelligence, since it is proven that both intelligent and nonintelligent females obey rules #2, and # 3 [Volks, 1997]) mates an unintelligent male, her offspring will inevitably be more unintelligent hence the statement by the Asian Person.
---------
personally, i dont think heridary 'intelligence' has any significant play in how intelligent a peson is, certainly being raised by less intelligent parents will affect how a person behaves in society, and also on how much the person will want to learn, but i think that the environment plays a larger role on the development of the brain
I agree. Intelligence seems to be both hereditary and environmental. But since environment is so fickle, and since using laws of statistics [I can show you if you want but since it is long I defer] shows that chances of an intelligent person being born in a non-stimulant environment and a dumb person being born in stimulant environment are the same, therefore the overall effects of the environment on the overall population of the humanbeings can be easily ignored, unless a terrible genetic drift or bottle neck effect ocurs [which is not the case]. This therefore means, that although as you mentioned (and you are truely right) that environment affect intelligence perhaps as much as intelligence, yet its effects are not considered in population genetics and gene pool studies. It simply comes down to allels and genes of interest. In short, it is almost correct to assume and equal intelligence with genes.
I must say I agree with you on this.
QUOTE
The brain is not a computer, the intelligence of one person may vary. Go to http://yahoo.com/centers/personality/2151 for refferance. I was reffering to the fact that my IQ has inceased by nine points.
Thanks for the link. Yes the data was very useful. As you certainly know intelligence is argued to be affected by both hereditary factors (genes) and environment. Lack of evidence to come up with a definitive statement as to which factor is more important or even how much each contributes to intelligence seems to be an endless loop around which the criticizers of eugenetics base their argument[ and they have the scientific right to, since data is insufficient]. The disagreement seems to stem from different evaluation of the effect of the environment on intelligence. I however understand you now, since you clarified. I however personally [my opinion only and hence open for argument until further evidence] have come to the conclusion that [this conclusion is apparently shared by the majority of stasticians who have conducted studies on effects of the environemnt on genes, which I believe I mentioned before and you quoted] that intelligence can be almost nearly equaled to "genetic intelligence" since effects of the environment on the gene pool is minimal, and also becaus one would never have more than 25% increase in intelligence [tested by IQ tests which in itself is open for argument since no definitive biase free test is achivable] of a person.
In short, yes I understand your argument. However, I personally believe resting on statistical data from experimental observation, that intelligence can almost nearly be though of as hereditary. Am I saying this from proven facts? No, it is still at best argued as one has not yet found an experiment to prove the percentage of contribution of 1)environment and 2)genes on intelligence yet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The brain is not a computer, the intelligence of one person may vary. Go to http://yahoo.com/centers/personality/2151 for refferance. I was reffering to the fact that my IQ has inceased by nine points. |
Thanks for the link. Yes the data was very useful. As you certainly know intelligence is argued to be affected by both hereditary factors (genes) and environment. Lack of evidence to come up with a definitive statement as to which factor is more important or even how much each contributes to intelligence seems to be an endless loop around which the criticizers of eugenetics base their argument[ and they have the scientific right to, since data is insufficient]. The disagreement seems to stem from different evaluation of the effect of the environment on intelligence. I however understand you now, since you clarified. I however personally [my opinion only and hence open for argument until further evidence] have come to the conclusion that [this conclusion is apparently shared by the majority of stasticians who have conducted studies on effects of the environemnt on genes, which I believe I mentioned before and you quoted] that intelligence can be almost nearly equaled to "genetic intelligence" since effects of the environment on the gene pool is minimal, and also becaus one would never have more than 25% increase in intelligence [tested by IQ tests which in itself is open for argument since no definitive biase free test is achivable] of a person.
In short, yes I understand your argument. However, I personally believe resting on statistical data from experimental observation, that intelligence can almost nearly be though of as hereditary. Am I saying this from proven facts? No, it is still at best argued as one has not yet found an experiment to prove the percentage of contribution of 1)environment and 2)genes on intelligence yet.
however, they do not carry the genes which create the geniuses, otherwise we wouldn't have any left after tens of thousands of years that which humans have been on this earth. It wasn't until ten thousand years ago that civilization was born. If we are getting dumber, than how come we're getting smarter?
Interesting prospect. I do not have any distinct research to support this, however I can offer you my view on this. I believe that mutations occur from time to time which account for increased intelligence. Mutations are nonbiased and occur in all races and cultures which is why we almost always have intelligent people in all races and culture. Mutations aside, I also believe that humankind is not behaving similarly. Religious sects such as Jews have been inbreeding for generations now, and this has led to an increased frequency of recessive genes which can account for both the increased number of recessive disease (Tay Sachs Disease for instance) and also steady rise of intelligence (some genes which confer super intelligence[defined as intelligence that is unprecedented, like that of Einstein] are expressed only when allels are homozygous recessive). This lack of similarity in behavior of difference races and cutlures has led to unequal distribution of intelligence. Geological barriers such as continental drifts, war, cultural battles, and also unawareness of existence of other races (prior to discovery of Native Americans for instance) has led to evolutionary patterns that some AGREE with you aformentioned idea and some that drastically differ from it. So this might explain why we are not seeing a steady decline in human intelligence up to now.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.