One of many problems with Evolution

[tzor]

we're not created equally.

No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!

"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.

[PLAYER57832]

Eugenics and social Darwinism are not at all the same thing, though they are related, so that comparison is invalid. The valid comparison is that the idea of Nazism, the idea that one race was superior to the other, that the IDEAS were superior.. that was roundly defeated.

I took a guess that you meant eugenics seeing as 'Social Darwinism' means nothing other than that that the law of natural selection applies to humans just as it applies to other animals.

The Nazis lost the war therefore everything they thought was wrong?

Uh.. no. Social Darwinism is the idea that natural selection applies to human behavior and societies, which it really does not. Whether natural selection applies to human genetics is another issue entirely.

Eugenics, basically directed human breeding and selection was popular right up until about WWII. Hitler did illustrate one of the worst possibilities of that idea, but there were other problems. The most basic one is that humans just are not truly capable of judging what "fitness" is in a long term sense. We tend toward superficialities.

What has emerged more recently and more sensibly, though with caution, is the idea that certain genetic diseases can be manipulated. Beyond that, we have the ability to dictate many things about human reproduction. Whether its OK or good or not is a heavy debate of its own.

[PLAYER57832]

IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.

Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.

I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)

In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.

Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.

If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.

I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.

You have either misunderstood me, misunderstood what your professor is saying, or your professor is not really looking at all the research on the matter. I am not wrong on this.

[BigBallinStalin]

we're not created equally.

No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!

"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.

Good luck getting shickingbrits to clarify his stance.

[Metsfanmax]

IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.

Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.

I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)

In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.

Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.

If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.

I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.

You have either misunderstood me, misunderstood what your professor is saying, or your professor is not really looking at all the research on the matter. I am not wrong on this.

Well, you made a point that was irrelevant to his point. You said that IQ is not the only important measure of intelligence -- likely true. That doesn't respond to his claim that IQ is largely genetic. The only relevant part of the post you said is that "tests can err."

[shickingbrits]

we're not created equally.

No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!

"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.

Good luck getting shickingbrits to clarify his stance.

You have life, I have life. Seems pretty equal.

[PLAYER57832]

IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.

Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.

I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)

In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.

Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.

If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.

I'll take the word of one of my professors who's written about IQ and education (and the general consensus of intelligent people on this matter) over the word of some lady in PN who commonly misspells words.

You have either misunderstood me, misunderstood what your professor is saying, or your professor is not really looking at all the research on the matter. I am not wrong on this.

Well, you made a point that was irrelevant to his point. You said that IQ is not the only important measure of intelligence -- likely true. That doesn't respond to his claim that IQ is largely genetic. The only relevant part of the post you said is that "tests can err."

Yes, reread and I guess you are correct in that.

My first point was that IQ is actually a LOT more flexible than people think... but a true expert in the areas, which BBS professor apparently is, would know that. Also, BBS said "largely".

The other issue is that it really doesn't matter in quite the way many people think.

[BigBallinStalin]

we're not created equally.

No, I'm pretty sure we are call created equally; one egg meets one sperm; BAM creation!

"Created equally" doesn't mean we are "equal at creation." Equally is an adverb not an adjective.

Good luck getting shickingbrits to clarify his stance.

You have life, I have life. Seems pretty equal.

"I'm a human; you're a human." Seems pretty equal, but... what's your point?

[Metsfanmax]

My first point was that IQ is actually a LOT more flexible than people think... but a true expert in the areas, which BBS professor apparently is, would know that. Also, BBS said "largely".

Isn't it the case that for the people who have the ability to most change their IQ, that flexibility is also genetically determined?

[tzor]

Eugenics, basically directed human breeding and selection was popular right up until about WWII. Hitler did illustrate one of the worst possibilities of that idea, but there were other problems. The most basic one is that humans just are not truly capable of judging what "fitness" is in a long term sense. We tend toward superficialities.

Another problem is that we often confuse environmental conditions with evolutionary conditions. Poverty, for example, is not genetic, however you are generally going to be in the same environmental conditions as were your parents, so the progressive notion of reducing poverty by simply causing poor people not to breed logically follows from the flawed assumption.

It's sort of the unspoken problem that happened during WWII. The difference between Communism and the specific Fascism of the Nazis was not over killing people but who should be killed. Communists believed in the killing based off of social class, eliminating poverty by eliminating the poor. The Nazi's made a point of limiting it to a specific race (although they both agreed that clear examples of bad genetics such as the handicapped should be eliminated as well).

It was during this point that the kind moderates (who thought that it would be idea that instead of killing people that people never be conceived in the first place) like Margaret Sanger started promoting contraception and sterilization as a way to reduce poverty. Same bad assumption, but in a more humane way, and an argument that actually had a non eugenic component (in that it is economically easier to support one or zero children than it is to suppose five or more).

[PLAYER57832]

My first point was that IQ is actually a LOT more flexible than people think... but a true expert in the areas, which BBS professor apparently is, would know that. Also, BBS said "largely".

Isn't it the case that for the people who have the ability to most change their IQ, that flexibility is also genetically determined?

No, that would be a separate issue.
The easiest examples to see are how many women and minorities are born just as intelligent as the male/majority counterparts, but lacking the same stimulation, drop significantly in IQ.

Similarly, Down's syndrome kids who get the right kind of attention will go up significantly.

There are a lot of concrete studies on this, but a similar study is the one where 2 sets of students were each told different things about high school. One set was told it was fun, easy.. they would do well. The other just the opposite. No surprise to most of us today that the ones who were given better expectations did better.

IQ is just one measure and not as static as once believed, much more dependent upon environment than once thought. That said, it is linked to genetics. A Down's kid can do better, but is vey unlikely to surpass his/her more "normal" siblings in IQ.

[AndyDufresne]

I prefer DQ over IQ.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

I prefer DQ over IQ.


--Andy

Creamist.

[Neoteny]

Wait. How the f*ck does one test a baby's IQ?

And what does genetic product even mean in this context?

[DoomYoshi]

Nice, Neoteny's back!

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait. How the f*ck does one test a baby's IQ?

And what does genetic product even mean in this context?

Gimme your baby. I'll test its IQ...

[Neoteny]

To where shall I mail her?

[shickingbrits]

Wait. How the f*ck does one test a baby's IQ?

And what does genetic product even mean in this context?

Gimme your baby. I'll test its IQ...

I would get a second opinion...Or a different first one.

[Neoteny]

If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?

[BigBallinStalin]

To where shall I mail her?

At your house.

Do you agree that IQ is largely determined by genetics? Before answering the rhetorical question, consider the following:

Sure, I don't know what the IQ tests of babies are, but from what I've heard, IQ is not something you can pump up as easily as muscles. There's some genetic constraint. E.g. if I drank all day, then my IQ would decrease. If i didn't, it would rise to my baseline IQ. If I spent more time researching it would increase by some small degree. Nevertheless, if I have an IQ of 130 at the age of 22, it's not like I can increase it to 160 because there's genetic constraints.

So, to wrap this around, we're all endowed with different IQs at birth.

[BigBallinStalin]

If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?

Baby, you can trust me.

[AndyDufresne]

If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?

Baby, you can trust me.

Babe, you can trust in me.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

If I can't trust Mr. Torrance/dinosaur with my baby, who can I trust?

Baby, you can trust me.

Babe, you can trust in me.


--Andy

[Neoteny]

I suppose I mostly just take issue with the idea that IQ is a reasonable measure of genetic output. If I had to guess, (which I actually do have to do, since I apparently can't be fucked to read more than a paragraph these days), PLAYER probably has the same qualm. Everybody is going to run on some sort of personal bell curve, sure. How much daddy's semen affects where that curve falls on the x-axis seems a little indefinite to me. If the genetics can't be done with a Punnett square by a Kappa Sigma on a Friday morning, I really have difficulty agreeing that a trait is "largely genetic." Testing babies' IQ would definitely help with that though. If you've got salary space under that grant, I'll happily administer progressive matrices to infants.

[BigBallinStalin]

I suppose I mostly just take issue with the idea that IQ is a reasonable measure of genetic output. If I had to guess, (which I actually do have to do, since I apparently can't be fucked to read more than a paragraph these days), PLAYER probably has the same qualm. Everybody is going to run on some sort of personal bell curve, sure. How much daddy's semen affects where that curve falls on the x-axis seems a little indefinite to me. If the genetics can't be done with a Punnett square by a Kappa Sigma on a Friday morning, I really have difficulty agreeing that a trait is "largely genetic." Testing babies' IQ would definitely help with that though. If you've got salary space under that grant, I'll happily administer progressive matrices to infants.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Mr. Neoteny. I mention IQ--however it's measured, as an instance which contradicts that 'all people are created equal'. Not all people will get the same IQ--holding everything constant. Not all people can obtain the same IQ. Do you really disagree with that? Test them at the age of 16 and then at 24. The results are largely the same. If I love you enough, I might spend hours haggling my professors to give me citations (a task I'd rather spend on efforts which directly benefit me more).