4 ms·

It's not a very nice thing to admit but I wished more people died because of their own stupidity. (And part of me wonders if that would actually be a net benefi

It's not a very nice thing to admit but I wished more people died because of their own stupidity. (And part of me wonders if that would actually be a net benefit or loss)

robryan 16y ago
It will be interesting how we evolve given that not many people die of their own stupidity before reproducing in modern society.
- philk 16y ago
  Also bear in mind that amongst other things we select for people who can't understand how contraception works and things look even shakier.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  You're making the assumption that "stupidity" comes from our DNA. Do you have any evidence that even remotely suggests this? Everything I see makes me think "stupid" is a learned behavior (e.g. stupid parents with brilliant kids, brilliant parents with stupid kids, etc.). I'm a little suprised on this site, of all sites, to see people subscribing to the idea that we are constrained by the intelligence of our parents. EDIT: Spelling
  - robryan 16y ago
    No stupidity as such but in general lots of traits which would have been bred out in the past will persist because many undesirable traits can be managed. I was more thinking about brain function and learning capability, not a direct stupidity from DNA.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      But I've still never seen any kind of link that showed brain function or learning capability linked to genetics. If you take e.g. a racist they are ignorant and close-minded. They could learn (at least as kids they could have) but they chose not to. This has nothing to do with genetics, it is learned behavior.
      - Daniel_Newby 16y ago
        "But I've still never seen any kind of link that showed brain function or learning capability linked to genetics." This paper says IQ has 70% heritability, based on a twin adoption study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2218526 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2218526 Other twin studies have found 75-90% heritability for attention deficit disorder. Schizophrenia is moderately heritable. Migraine is well-known for running in families.
      - robryan 16y ago
        If this were true then over time humans would never have evolved to be as intellectually capable as we are. Why can we do so many things ape's can't yet have a common ancestry? It is defiantly learned behavior how you want to make use of the capability but as plenty of people with learning difficulties would attest, if the underlying function isn't as strong as in others it makes it a whole lot harder to learn even with the motivation.
        loewenskind 16y ago
        But we're not talking about mental handicap here. We're talking about normal functioning people who make stupid decisions. I don't think genetics has anything at all to do with that and I've never seen anything that would make me believe it does. Given that, the only negative influence such people have by breeding is the influence they wield over their children (which can be a lot, but can also be overcome).
  - maw 16y ago
    Are you smarter than animals with brains a fraction of the size of yours? Why or why not? If the answer to the first question is "yes", it shouldn't take much to extrapolate from there. Now, how to divvy up that quality which we call intelligence into what is inherited and what is learned is an open, and difficult, question. I think it's pretty clear that both are important, and their relative weights probably vary from individual to individual. Still, is the idea that intelligence comes in part from our DNA "remotely suggested"? I think it's fair to say so.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      I was talking about among humans. Obviously brain size has a direct relation with intelligence. Are you suggesting that people like the lady in question have smaller brains?
      - maw 16y ago
        Forget the bit about brain size. It's a distraction from what I was trying to get at. Sorry. To rephrase my question: are you smarter than most (and in all likelihood all) non-human animals? The answer is yes, and in the case of humans vs animals, I deny that it's because of culture or upbringing or all the other stuff that gets lumped into the category of "nurture". If it were just that, well, my cats would by now be speaking about as well as human five year olds do. It's clear to me that nature plays a role. How much of a role is unclear, and, as I said, I suspect it varies. For historical reasons, we're stuck with both racist pseudoscience and politically correct pseudoscience to contend with. I bet the truth about these matters, if ever found, will be somewhere in between. (And, FWIW, closer to the politically correct side of things.)

It's not a very nice thing to admit but I wished more people died because of their own stupidity. (And part of me wonders if that would actually be a net benefit or loss)

robryan 16y ago

It will be interesting how we evolve given that not many people die of their own stupidity before reproducing in modern society.

philk 16y ago
Also bear in mind that amongst other things we select for people who can't understand how contraception works and things look even shakier.
loewenskind 16y ago
You're making the assumption that "stupidity" comes from our DNA. Do you have any evidence that even remotely suggests this? Everything I see makes me think "stupid" is a learned behavior (e.g. stupid parents with brilliant kids, brilliant parents with stupid kids, etc.). I'm a little suprised on this site, of all sites, to see people subscribing to the idea that we are constrained by the intelligence of our parents. EDIT: Spelling
- robryan 16y ago
  No stupidity as such but in general lots of traits which would have been bred out in the past will persist because many undesirable traits can be managed. I was more thinking about brain function and learning capability, not a direct stupidity from DNA.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    But I've still never seen any kind of link that showed brain function or learning capability linked to genetics. If you take e.g. a racist they are ignorant and close-minded. They could learn (at least as kids they could have) but they chose not to. This has nothing to do with genetics, it is learned behavior.
    - Daniel_Newby 16y ago
      "But I've still never seen any kind of link that showed brain function or learning capability linked to genetics." This paper says IQ has 70% heritability, based on a twin adoption study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2218526 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2218526 Other twin studies have found 75-90% heritability for attention deficit disorder. Schizophrenia is moderately heritable. Migraine is well-known for running in families.
    - robryan 16y ago
      If this were true then over time humans would never have evolved to be as intellectually capable as we are. Why can we do so many things ape's can't yet have a common ancestry? It is defiantly learned behavior how you want to make use of the capability but as plenty of people with learning difficulties would attest, if the underlying function isn't as strong as in others it makes it a whole lot harder to learn even with the motivation.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        But we're not talking about mental handicap here. We're talking about normal functioning people who make stupid decisions. I don't think genetics has anything at all to do with that and I've never seen anything that would make me believe it does. Given that, the only negative influence such people have by breeding is the influence they wield over their children (which can be a lot, but can also be overcome).
- maw 16y ago
  Are you smarter than animals with brains a fraction of the size of yours? Why or why not? If the answer to the first question is "yes", it shouldn't take much to extrapolate from there. Now, how to divvy up that quality which we call intelligence into what is inherited and what is learned is an open, and difficult, question. I think it's pretty clear that both are important, and their relative weights probably vary from individual to individual. Still, is the idea that intelligence comes in part from our DNA "remotely suggested"? I think it's fair to say so.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    I was talking about among humans. Obviously brain size has a direct relation with intelligence. Are you suggesting that people like the lady in question have smaller brains?
    - maw 16y ago
      Forget the bit about brain size. It's a distraction from what I was trying to get at. Sorry. To rephrase my question: are you smarter than most (and in all likelihood all) non-human animals? The answer is yes, and in the case of humans vs animals, I deny that it's because of culture or upbringing or all the other stuff that gets lumped into the category of "nurture". If it were just that, well, my cats would by now be speaking about as well as human five year olds do. It's clear to me that nature plays a role. How much of a role is unclear, and, as I said, I suspect it varies. For historical reasons, we're stuck with both racist pseudoscience and politically correct pseudoscience to contend with. I bet the truth about these matters, if ever found, will be somewhere in between. (And, FWIW, closer to the politically correct side of things.)