4 ms·

Regarding 9), if you're reading this you should have as many children as possible. Your high-IQ genes will be passed on to them; only the intelligent of the nex

by Banthum 10y ago

Regarding 9), if you're reading this you should have as many children as possible. Your high-IQ genes will be passed on to them; only the intelligent of the next generation will have the foresight and technical ability to develop real (technological) solutions to environmental problems. It's pretty well-demonstrated that the moralistic approach to climate change, where you harangue people into recycling or biking or whatever, doesn't work. It's just trimming around the edges, leaving the core 95% of the problem untouched. People won't give up their lifestyles, and in the case of poor third-worlders it's hard to ask them to do that anyway. If climate change is stopped, it'll be by technological solutions. There's <10% of the world population who will be endowed with the genetic gifts to participate in this process of technical solution-making. Your kids will be among them. Make some kids.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jcoffland 10y ago
It's troubling that you believe your genetics are responsible for economic success and education.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  IQ is strongly hereditary and is pretty well correlated with economic success, so I don't see how this is troubling...
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    > IQ is strongly hereditary and is pretty well correlated with economic success Can you back up these claims? I don't think either is obviously true. IQ tests themselves have dubious value.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/ https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlat...
      - jcoffland 10y ago
        From the Wikipedia page: > A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98." This demonstrates quite clearly that high socioeconomic status causes high IQ scores, not the other way around. Your other source is the Pumpkin Person who's blog is titled "The psychology of horror" and writes about horror movies. Does not appear credible.
        Banthum 10y ago
        That results indicates that if you take children and go from "abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next" to a stable adopted family home, you can increase IQ scores. Which is pretty obvious. There is always an amount of abuse that will destroy someone's IQ. Bringing them back to a decent middle-class upbringing will restore them to their baseline. But once that baseline is achieved, evidence is that it can't generally be improved. One can learn skills and knowledge but IQ is stable. Above lower-middle class American abuse-free households, increases in SES don't affect IQ. E.g. People have inherent talent at sprinting. Malnutrition or abuse can destroy this talent. But once people have decent upbringing, and try hard, and have support, what determines the champion is genetics. Which is why pretty much all champion sprinters have west African ancestry (since they have inherited traits that make them good sprinters). EDIT: Here's a source for you on IQ heritability: American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Intelligence report. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.1282&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134... “If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (c2) to about .25.” And “By late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies).” (p. 85).
- Banthum 10y ago
  Factual beliefs should be a foundation for moral convictions, not the other way around.

by Banthum 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jcoffland 10y ago

It's troubling that you believe your genetics are responsible for economic success and education.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
IQ is strongly hereditary and is pretty well correlated with economic success, so I don't see how this is troubling...
- jcoffland 10y ago
  > IQ is strongly hereditary and is pretty well correlated with economic success Can you back up these claims? I don't think either is obviously true. IQ tests themselves have dubious value.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/ https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlat...
    - jcoffland 10y ago
      From the Wikipedia page: > A study (1999) by Capron and Duyme of French children adopted between the ages of four and six examined the influence of socioeconomic status (SES). The children's IQs initially averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next. Nine years later after adoption, when they were on average 14 years old, they retook the IQ tests, and all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family's socioeconomic status. "Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average IQ scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average IQ scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98." This demonstrates quite clearly that high socioeconomic status causes high IQ scores, not the other way around. Your other source is the Pumpkin Person who's blog is titled "The psychology of horror" and writes about horror movies. Does not appear credible.
      - Banthum 10y ago
        That results indicates that if you take children and go from "abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next" to a stable adopted family home, you can increase IQ scores. Which is pretty obvious. There is always an amount of abuse that will destroy someone's IQ. Bringing them back to a decent middle-class upbringing will restore them to their baseline. But once that baseline is achieved, evidence is that it can't generally be improved. One can learn skills and knowledge but IQ is stable. Above lower-middle class American abuse-free households, increases in SES don't affect IQ. E.g. People have inherent talent at sprinting. Malnutrition or abuse can destroy this talent. But once people have decent upbringing, and try hard, and have support, what determines the champion is genetics. Which is why pretty much all champion sprinters have west African ancestry (since they have inherited traits that make them good sprinters). EDIT: Here's a source for you on IQ heritability: American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Intelligence report. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.1282&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134... “If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (c2) to about .25.” And “By late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies).” (p. 85).
Banthum 10y ago
Factual beliefs should be a foundation for moral convictions, not the other way around.