Club 30's "Kill the Boredom Demon" Jive Pad 142nd Edition
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
I'd say there's a flaw in that reasoning, Fatum. There's yet to be any particularly compelling research that demonstrates the link between genetics and intelligence. Hell, Spearman suggested the concept of g more than a century ago and nobody's yet been able to measure it. Bottom line is that notwithstanding the political incorrectness of the concept, we still don't know enough to "breed for intelligence".
well, the way I see it ged, it's like those scientists who say global warming and climate change is nothing to worry about, cos we have not determined whether there's a real link between human activities and climate change yet, so it's okay to go on burning hydro carbons, it's okay to keep stripping forests.
I've been pretty stoked by this topic every since I picked up a copy of the bell curve yonks ago (yeah, more political incorrectness !)
I still think what I've suggested is something instuitive. Like the puppy example I gave over in night owls last night. You want certain physical traits in a puppy, floppy ears, bushy tail etc, you get together a pair with these traits and breed them. the resulting pupsies, at least some of them, would exhibit the traits you want eh ? So why not humans ? And if physical traits can be inherited, why not mental ability ?
I was quite disturbed when I read the bell curve of course, but that book and related publications I followed up with threw up a lot of uncomfortable correlations between socio-economic circumstances and cognitive abilities. Between teenage pregnancies, substance abuse, delinquency, family dysfunction, welfare dependency and cognitive ability. Oh I'm sure sociologist can come up with lots of other reasons, poverty cycle, pure bad luck etc etc. But I think the correlation is a fact, an uncomfortable one, but one that's got to be taken into account.
True, offspring cognitive ability is probably a function of a lot of other more complex factors than just pure genetics alone, but I think we'd be deluding ourselves if we pretend genetics is a determinant in all other physical traits except mental ability. It's definitely part of the equation, the only real question should be just, by how much, eh ?
I think if we're to get down from the ivory tower and not talk about breeding for the species and colonizing the stars etc, each of us has a duty to pass on the best genes we could to our intended offsprings, to give them the best headstart in life. Cos like is or not, the processor one is born with, is the one one is stuck with, for life. Not pretty, not handsome, nevermind, surgery can fix, not smart ? well, no one's invented a smart pill yet eh.
Sure, people like to talk about the latter day's hard work being more important, but let's not kid ourselves, an overclocked 486 would never compare to the latest i7 core from intel, eh ? The potential is innate. A chap gifted with an i7 can choose to be lazy and not go to school etc, but we mustn't confuse that with the lack of innate potential eh ?
And I think this line of thought is getting more and more important nowadays. Modern life is incresingly demanding, mentally. The IQ required to function in modern society has been inching ever upwards. Computers, hps, traffic systems, transport systems, our work tools, are all getting more and more complex as we move into an information based age. Our ability to thrive and prosper in this environment increasingly depend on our ability to process and react to information. Our IQ, in other words. People on the left side of the bell curve would be left further and further behind in this new world.
-
Originally posted by av98m:
My breakfast wins :D
Fatum is sounding more and more like lau lee each day. Has he drunk the PAP kool-aid?
next thing you know...he's standing for elections? and he's a walking advert with the 4 kids in tow?
-
Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:
Case in point: the fat cat ministers in the upper echelons of the Singapore government who, for all their alleged academic and scholastic qualifications and achievements, continually exhibit gross incompetence in the establishment and administration of public policy.
I've already replied to a similar sentiment from the bear yesterday ....
but here another take from me about this thing .....
sure, they may look incompetent, despite their "alleged" qualifications and achievements, but hey, they are still the powers-that-be, raking in millions a year, and still shitting on everyone's heads .....
that's pretty smart, isn't it ?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
I've already replied to a similar sentiment from the bear yesterday ....
but here another take from me about this thing .....
sure, they may look incompetent, despite their "alleged" qualifications and achievements, but hey, they are still the powers-that-be, raking in millions a year, and still shitting on everyone's heads .....
that's pretty smart, isn't it ?
Time for you to join grassroots, Fatum. Are you below 35?!
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
well, the way I see it ged, it's like those scientists who say global warming and climate change is nothing to worry about, cos we have not determined whether there's a real link between human activities and climate change yet, so it's okay to go on burning hydro carbons, it's okay to keep stripping forests.
I've been pretty stoked by this topic every since I picked up a copy of the bell curve yonks ago (yeah, more political incorrectness !)
I still think what I've suggested is something instuitive. Like the puppy example I gave over in night owls last night. You want certain physical traits in a puppy, floppy ears, bushy tail etc, you get together a pair with these traits and breed them. the resulting pupsies, at least some of them, would exhibit the traits you want eh ? So why not humans ? And if physical traits can be inherited, why not mental ability ?
I was quite disturbed when I read the bell curve of course, but that book and related publications I followed up with threw up a lot of uncomfortable correlations between socio-economic circumstances and cognitive abilities. Between teenage pregnancies, substance abuse, delinquency, family dysfunction, welfare dependency and cognitive ability. Oh I'm sure sociologist can come up with lots of other reasons, poverty cycle, pure bad luck etc etc. But I think the correlation is a fact, an uncomfortable one, but one that's got to be taken into account.
True, offspring cognitive ability is probably a function of a lot of other more complex factors than just pure genetics alone, but I think we'd be deluding ourselves if we pretend genetics is a determinant in all other physical traits except mental ability. It's definitely part of the equation, the only real question should be just, by how much, eh ?
I think if we're to get down from the ivory tower and not talk about breeding for the species and colonizing the stars etc, each of us has a duty to pass on the best genes we could to our intended offsprings, to give them the best headstart in life. Cos like is or not, the processor one is born with, is the one one is stuck with, for life. Not pretty, not handsome, nevermind, surgery can fix, not smart ? well, no one's invented a smart pill yet eh.
Sure, people like to talk about the latter day's hard work being more important, but let's not kid ourselves, an overclocked 486 would never compare to the latest i7 core from intel, eh ? The potential is innate. A chap gifted with an i7 can choose to be lazy and not go to school etc, but we mustn't confuse that with the lack of innate potential eh ?
And I think this line of thought is getting more and more important nowadays. Modern life is incresingly demanding, mentally. The IQ required to function in modern society has been inching ever upwards. Computers, hps, traffic systems, transport systems, our work tools, are all getting more and more complex as we move into an information based age. Our ability to thrive and prosper in this environment increasingly depend on our ability to process and react to information. Our IQ, in other words. People on the left side of the bell curve would be left further and further behind in this new world.
In effect this is supporting the role of inequity in society. Which begs the question: Is it possible therefore to conclude that doctors are "more useful" than farmers since they are paid higher, and are therefore allocated more resources? -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
In effect this is supporting the role of inequity in society. Which begs the question: Is it possible therefore to conclude that doctors are "more useful" than farmers since they are paid higher, and are therefore allocated more resources?
These days farmers also have PhDs okBut then if everyone sits on the ivory tower, who is going to do the work?
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
In effect this is supporting the role of inequity in society. Which begs the question: Is it possible therefore to conclude that doctors are "more useful" than farmers since they are paid higher, and are therefore allocated more resources?that is not true even in the communist system.
But yes, I think such inequalities are self-perpertuating to a certain extent in most societies. They don't call it the poverty cycle for nothing eh ? Of course, social dynamics would mean that every now and then, someone would break out from the cycle, or someone from outside the cycle would descend into it. But I think it's important to recognize all the drive factors in these cycles, not just from a pure sociological standpoint, if we were to address the issue.
whether or not doctors are "more useful" than farmers is besides the point. It depends on what your determinants are, but generally speaking, in modern society, can you not acknowledge that certain vocations which are more mentally demanding, brings you bigger economic rewards ? That's not the entire story of course, for we humans have free will and choice. We can chose to be slothful, we can chose a certain calling, a particular job. Being a doc would make you more than say, teaching, but the mental demands would be not much different. That's why not all mensa members are millionaires.
-
Originally posted by elindra:
These days farmers also have PhDs okBut then if everyone sits on the ivory tower, who is going to do the work?
yeah, I know, my school back in pluto had a lot of those ...... I once saw a mathematical model of soil phosphate concentrations .... -___-"
but such farmers would be more efficient and successful than someone who just grunts and sweat and changkol, no ? ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
yeah, I know, my school back in pluto had a lot of those ...... I once saw a mathematical model of soil phosphate concentrations .... -___-"
but such farmers would be more efficient and successful than someone who just grunts and sweat and changkol, no ? ....
Hmm.. there are places in the world where there isn't any test equipment to assess phosphate in soil, and therefore you are not able to analyze the quality of soil 'scientifically'
And even in these places, there are farmers who through sheer powers of observation, innovation and hard work - manage to create decent farms to feed their families.
So those with better tools and education available may achieve more - but does not mean they are equipped with better genes.
-
Originally posted by cassie:
next thing you know...he's standing for elections? and he's a walking advert with the 4 kids in tow?I think he will start by becoming a grassroots volunteer to get his kids into the 'good' schools.
-
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
Hmm.. there are places in the world where there isn't any test equipment to assess phosphate in soil, and therefore you are not able to analyze the quality of soil 'scientifically'
And even in these places, there are farmers who through sheer powers of observation, innovation and hard work - manage to create decent farms to feed their families.
So those with better tools and education available may achieve more - but does not mean they are equipped with better genes.
well, that's only half the story, observation and innovation would require a certain mental capacity too, no ?
It takes something to make the connection from the weather, soil observations, to improve corps yield, to devise new ways for irrigation, for pest control, for fertilizer etc etc.
All things being equal, you put two equally hard working farmer in an equal plot of land, don't you think the chap who can observe better, refine better, improve better would yield more ?
Actually, I think this is really part of the story of our species. That's how we progressed from hairy cavemen to modern life. Natural selection worked on other species' physical traits, but on our species, the mental one. That's how we, a hairless, rather weak biped could subjugate most of nature and colonize every corner of this planet. We don't have claws or fangs, we are not big enough to escape natural depredation, we as a species succeeded by our brains, not our physique.
-
Seriously, if you want to talk about genetics and whatnot, what about the studies that show a possible relationship between the age of the mother and increased risk for babies to be born with learning disabilities like autism, dyslexia, and down's syndrome? At this stage of the research its more correlation than causation but still?
Example:
RELATIONSHIP OF DOWN SYNDROME INCIDENCE TO MOTHERS' AGE
Mothers Age
Incidence of Down Syndrome
Under 30 Less than 1 in 1,000 30 1 in 900 35 1 in 400 36 1 in 300 37 1 in 230 38 1 in 180 39 1 in 135 40 1 in 105 42 1 in 60 44 1 in 35 46 1 in 20 48 1 in 16 49 1 in 12 Source: Hook, E.G., Lindsjo, A. Down Syndrome in Live Births by Single Year Maternal Age.
-
Originally posted by av98m:
Seriously, if you want to talk about genetics and whatnot, what about the studies that show a possible relationship between the age of the mother and increased risk for babies to be born with learning disabilities like autism, dyslexia, and down's syndrome? At this stage of the research its more correlation than causation but still?
Example:
RELATIONSHIP OF DOWN SYNDROME INCIDENCE TO MOTHERS' AGE
Mothers Age
Incidence of Down Syndrome
Under 30 Less than 1 in 1,000 30 1 in 900 35 1 in 400 36 1 in 300 37 1 in 230 38 1 in 180 39 1 in 135 40 1 in 105 42 1 in 60 44 1 in 35 46 1 in 20 48 1 in 16 49 1 in 12
Source: Hook, E.G., Lindsjo, A. Down Syndrome in Live Births by Single Year Maternal Age.
oh, we've considered that, fatumnette and I, that's why I've been feeding her all the really bor stuff .... and that's why we are going to start our family as soon as possible.
we've also dealt with the what-if ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
oh, we've considered that, fatumnette and I, that's why I've been feeding her all the really bor stuff .... and that's why we are going to start our family as soon as possible.
we've also dealt with the what-if ....
cool. as long as you're aware of the dice you're rolling.
I sorta work with some people dealing with special needs and the numbers diagnosed with learning disorders keep increasing every year. partly its due to greater awareness of such conditions, and part of me thinks it might have to do with the increasing trend of people having children only in their late 30s to 40s. Many of these kids have both parents as highly educated white collar professionals.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
that is not true even in the communist system.
But yes, I think such inequalities are self-perpertuating to a certain extent in most societies. They don't call it the poverty cycle for nothing eh ? Of course, social dynamics would mean that every now and then, someone would break out from the cycle, or someone from outside the cycle would descend into it. But I think it's important to recognize all the drive factors in these cycles, not just from a pure sociological standpoint, if we were to address the issue.
whether or not doctors are "more useful" than farmers is besides the point. It depends on what your determinants are, but generally speaking, in modern society, can you not acknowledge that certain vocations which are more mentally demanding, brings you bigger economic rewards ? That's not the entire story of course, for we humans have free will and choice. We can chose to be slothful, we can chose a certain calling, a particular job. Being a doc would make you more than say, teaching, but the mental demands would be not much different. That's why not all mensa members are millionaires.
In some sense, communism is far less egalitarian than a democracy. Power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are given absolute power to distribute the resources. Power is what determines many things in society.If choices is what makes life worth living, then eugenism kinda defeats that purpose.
But seriously there's hundred and one ways to argue till the cows come home. What use is "choices" if there are none left after "wong choices"?
But IMO, eugenism doesn't solve the problem because not everyone can sit on the ivory tower, and that being the case, not everything can be taught top-down as well.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
well, that's only half the story, observation and innovation would require a certain mental capacity too, no ?
It takes something to make the connection from the weather, soil observations, to improve corps yield, to devise new ways for irrigation, for pest control, for fertilizer etc etc.
All things being equal, you put two equally hard working farmer in an equal plot of land, don't you think the chap who can observe better, refine better, improve better would yield more ?
Actually, I think this is really part of the story of our species. That's how we progressed from hairy cavemen to modern life. Natural selection worked on other species' physical traits, but on our species, the mental one. That's how we, a hairless, rather weak biped could subjugate most of nature and colonize every corner of this planet. We don't have claws or fangs, we are not big enough to escape natural depredation, we as a species succeeded by our brains, not our physique.
Of course, that's exactly what I mean.
People are made up of good and bad genes - if a person have extremely GOOD genes, and extremely BAD genes - random selection means the child can turn out either extremely GOOD or extremely BAD - but chances are, the child will just end up average. But in the modern world - there are so many micro-factors you need to consider to see whether a person is 'more suitable' for 'breeding' that it becomes totally impossible to have quality control.Natural selection is a long term series of randomised trials, over time, such randomised trials may reveal patterns of suitable traits that help survival of the species. However, such traits may or may not be traits that we as a species here and now find attractive. If we take natural selection into our own hands - it means it isn't "natural" anymore.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
oh, we've considered that, fatumnette and I, that's why I've been feeding her all the really bor stuff .... and that's why we are going to start our family as soon as possible.
we've also dealt with the what-if ....
have you guys also considered which schools they'll be studying in? -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
In some sense, communism is far less egalitarian than a democracy. Power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are given absolute power to distribute the resources. Power is what determines many things in society.If choices is what makes life worth living, then eugenism kinda defeats that purpose.
But seriously there's hundred and one ways to argue till the cows come home. What use is "choices" if there are none left after "wong choices"?
But IMO, eugenism doesn't solve the problem because not everyone can sit on the ivory tower, and that being the case, not everything can be taught top-down as well.
true, power is perhaps, the only currency, but have you considered that process of getting into power ? what does it take, really, all things being equal ?
true, if you perch yourself on the ivory tower and think, you'll realize not everyone can afford to sit on the ivory tower, someone's got to sweat and do all the mule and grunt work.
but would you want to do it ? .... or would you want your children to do it ?
There are no "wrong" choices in life, that's what free will is all about. But our choices in life, like it or not, are limited to a certain extent by our innate cognitive ability. A person may chose to pursue his passion and chose to be, say, a social worker, a teacher or a biologist in africa, instead of say, a banker or a technoprenuer, you can spurn material rewards for something else, a higher calling, that is your choice.
But this choice may not exist for people on the left side of the bell curve. To put it simply, it takes a certain something to be a highly paid banker, say, with the immense complexity of the modern banking system and all the pricing functions and mathematical models I've seen my friends work on. It's not something everyone can chose to be, you must have what it takes.
Sad but true, this is the reality of life. And these are certainly very very provocative and uncomfortable thoughts. I'm only typing all these out here because I'm confident of the maturity of you chaps here. These are also likely dangerous thoughts, in the wrong sort of minds.
-
Originally posted by cassie:
have you guys also considered which schools they'll be studying in?you have a duty to the species too you know.
-
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
Of course, that's exactly what I mean.
People are made up of good and bad genes - if a person have extremely GOOD genes, and extremely BAD genes - random selection means the child can turn out either extremely GOOD or extremely BAD - but chances are, the child will just end up average. But in the modern world - there are so many micro-factors you need to consider to see whether a person is 'more suitable' for 'breeding' that it becomes totally impossible to have quality control.Natural selection is a long term series of randomised trials, over time, such randomised trials may reveal patterns of suitable traits that help survival of the species. However, such traits may or may not be traits that we as a species here and now find attractive. If we take natural selection into our own hands - it means it isn't "natural" anymore.
well, I think I've addressed the "other factors" above.
but I think it's also no accident that most people tend to end up with their socio-economic and intellectual equal ... the latter more so. I think it's likely because people can communicate and connect a lot better with their intellectual equal ?
so, naturally, natural selection is already at work, even if we find it uncomfortable to acknowledge it, no ?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
well, I think I've addressed the "other factors" above.
but I think it's also no accident that most people tend to end up with their socio-economic and intellectual equal ... the latter more so. I think it's likely because people can communicate and connect a lot better with their intellectual equal ?
so, naturally, natural selection is already at work, even if we find it uncomfortable to acknowledge it, no ?
I think it is very dangerous to think this way.... because... again - your intellect is only one very small aspect of what makes you human (and humane)
That you can communicate and connect better with an intellectual equal is a fallacy bred by snobs. (Sorry Fatum) A better person isn't necessary smarter - and a smarter person isn't necessarily better.
A blink of an eye and we cross the line into feudal caste systems where people can only marry within their own castes because only their caste is good enough for them. Natural selection means, we make our own choices - if you like bimbos, so be it. But who knows in that bimbo genes is one dormant super intelligent gene she carries from some ancient ancestor. It's DNA lottery with the human species.
But if we are talking about eugenics as a POLICY - then the choice is taken away from us. I am afraid to walk down that road.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
you have a duty to the species too you know.
sorry, i'm outta this game. very unlikely that i'll be able to "breed". -
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
I think it is very dangerous to think this way.... because... again - your intellect is only one very small aspect of what makes you human (and humane)
That you can communicate and connect better with an intellectual equal is a fallacy bred by snobs. (Sorry Fatum) A better person isn't necessary smarter - and a smarter person isn't necessarily better.
A blink of an eye and we cross the line into feudal caste systems where people can only marry within their own castes because only their caste is good enough for them. Natural selection means, we make our own choices - if you like bimbos, so be it. But who knows in that bimbo genes is one dormant super intelligent gene she carries from some ancient ancestor. It's DNA lottery with the human species.
But if we are talking about eugenics as a POLICY - then the choice is taken away from us. I am afraid to walk down that road.
of course, life is certainly more complex than that. There's genetic mutation, there are sleeper genes that trigger certain desirable traits or anomalies in people. The list goes on. What I'm saying is, while we haven't worked out the exact mechanics of it, genetic inheritance is a fact, whether it's for physical traits, or mental ones.
A farmer who wants some super cows, or a dog breeder who wants, the famous example would be the tailess boxer, would cross breed the traits he wants and after a while, he'll get em, that he has to cull off a certain percentage of calfs or pupsies with the wrong characteristics only slightly obscure the fact that genetic inheritance is a fact. Yes, life is a gamble, the most unlikely hand may win, or a sure bet may flop, but there are good odds and there are bad odds.
eugenics as a policy would never happen, period. in anycase, that's not the road I'm talking about, the road's a very personal one. Of course, one may say, that takes away free choice, which is one of the basis of the human condition, no ? But another of my point is many people already make such a choice out of their own free will, unconsiously, no ? Don't many ladies draw up a prereq list of desirable traits in a boyfriend ?
Of course, there are the exceptions, and the unlikeliest people would get together. But that's why they are exceptional ?From a macro perspective, such exceptions is good for the species, as it introduces genetic variations across the pool that otherwise wouldn't happen, It also makes for social dynamics, a healthy non-stagnant society. But then, which parent wouldn't wish their offsprings to turn out very smart ? And why is that so ? Is it because parents are aware deep down, that intellectual ability is a key driver of later success ? An indication of innate potential ?
For sure, such a topic stinks very much of snobbery and elitism (ironically, one of the things I forced myself to recognize early in life, is that I'm actually not very smart, perhaps that's why I have an avid fascination with this area), not to mention all the grossly politically incorrect connotations it conjures up. That's why, for most people, our inbuilt egalitarian instincts rejects this line of thought immediately.
But I think we must be cognizant of all the drive factors in the socio-economic cycles of a society, if we were to effectively address such inequalities. This is but just another facet of the problem, however disturbing it is to think about.
-
Originally posted by cassie:
sorry, i'm outta this game. very unlikely that i'll be able to "breed".yeah, you're way too thin ..... you may be a high risk mother .....
but that's something very easily corrected ....
-
Originally posted by cassie:
have you guys also considered which schools they'll be studying in?yes ...............................
names chosen too ....... two names, the same names came to both of us in a dream ...... so we know it's inspired by something higher ....both of us dreamt of the same names on the same night. But that's another story.