PDA

View Full Version : Genes are key to academic success



Jovialis
07-09-18, 12:46
Parents always worry about whether their children will do well in school, but their kids probably were born with much of what they will need to succeed. A new study published in npj Science of Learning by researchers from The University of Texas at Austin and King's College London explains the substantial influence genes have on academic success, from the start of elementary school to the last day of high school.

For many years, research has linked educational achievement to life trajectories, such as occupational status, health or happiness. But if performing well in school predicts better life outcomes, what predicts how well someone will do throughout school?

"Around two-thirds of individual differences in school achievement are explained by differences in children's DNA," said Margherita Malanchini, a psychology postdoctoral fellow at the Population Research Center at UT Austin. "But less is known about how these factors contribute to an individual's academic success overtime."

Malanchini and Kaili Rimfeld, a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London, analyzed test scores from primary through the end of compulsory education of more than 6,000 pairs of twins.

Researchers found educational achievement to be highly stable throughout schooling, meaning that most students who started off well in primary school continued to do well until graduation. Genetic factors explained about 70 percent of this stability, while the twins shared environment contributed to about 25 percent, and their nonshared environment, such as different friends or teachers, contributed to the remaining 5 percent.

That's not to say that an individual was simply born smart, researchers explained. Even after accounting for intelligence, genes still explained about 60 percent of the continuity of academic achievement.

"Academic achievement is driven by a range of cognitive and noncognitive traits," Malanchini said. "Previously, studies have linked it to personality, behavioral problems, motivation, health and many other factors that are partly heritable."

However, at times grades did change, such as a drop in grades between primary and secondary school. Those changes, researchers said, can be explained largely by nonshared environmental factors.

"Our findings should provide additional motivation to identify children in need of interventions as early as possible, as the problems are likely to remain throughout the school years," said Rimfeld.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-genes-key-academic-success.html#jCp

Abstract

Little is known about the etiology of developmental change and continuity in educational achievement. Here, we study achievement from primary school to the end of compulsory education for 6000 twin pairs in the UK-representative Twins Early Development Study sample. Results showed that educational achievement is highly heritable across school years and across subjects studied at school (twin heritability ~60%; SNP heritability ~30%); achievement is highly stable (phenotypic correlations ~0.70 from ages 7 to 16). Twin analyses, applying simplex and common pathway models, showed that genetic factors accounted for most of this stability (70%), even after controlling for intelligence (60%). Shared environmental factors also contributed to the stability, while change was mostly accounted for by individual-specific environmental factors. Polygenic scores, derived from a genome-wide association analysis of adult years of education, also showed stable effects on school achievement. We conclude that the remarkable stability of achievement is largely driven genetically even after accounting for intelligence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0030-0

Angela
07-09-18, 17:34
Abstract

Little is known about the etiology of developmental change and continuity in educational achievement. Here, we study achievement from primary school to the end of compulsory education for 6000 twin pairs in the UK-representative Twins Early Development Study sample. Results showed that educational achievement is highly heritable across school years and across subjects studied at school (twin heritability ~60%; SNP heritability ~30%); achievement is highly stable (phenotypic correlations ~0.70 from ages 7 to 16). Twin analyses, applying simplex and common pathway models, showed that genetic factors accounted for most of this stability (70%), even after controlling for intelligence (60%). Shared environmental factors also contributed to the stability, while change was mostly accounted for by individual-specific environmental factors. Polygenic scores, derived from a genome-wide association analysis of adult years of education, also showed stable effects on school achievement. We conclude that the remarkable stability of achievement is largely driven genetically even after accounting for intelligence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0030-0

I've always thought that, and even more strongly once my children were born and I was exposed to lots of children of a similar age.

The problem is that I doubt early intervention with lower performing children does much good. Some children are just not university material, will never be physicists, and torturing them forever will not change that.

If society wants all brilliant children, they're going to have to mess with the genetic material.

ToBeOrNotToBe
09-09-18, 03:38
Geneplaza actually has a feature where you upload your e.g. 23andme kit and they give you your position on genetic intelligence and educational attainment on a bell curve (here's mine):

https://i.imgur.com/lFS8Quw.png

https://i.imgur.com/Epz1Afq.png


If society wants all brilliant children, they're going to have to mess with the genetic material.

So, for the record, are you all for compassionate eugenics? As I've said before, the tarnishing of eugenics by Nazi war crimes is probably going to be the greatest cause of needless suffering in human history.

GussieDarley
16-10-18, 13:46
People who are smart have academic success. Genes affect the mind of a person. Therefore, we can say that academic success depends on genes.

FinlayGiles
30-09-19, 15:57
cool topic

Jovialis
02-10-19, 15:12
Study results suggest genetic influence on social outcomes greater in meritocratic than communistic societies:

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-results-genetic-social-outcomes-greater.html

From April 2018

Farstar
02-10-19, 15:37
Study results suggest genetic influence on social outcomes greater in meritocratic than communistic societies:

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-results-genetic-social-outcomes-greater.html

From April 2018

In communist countries, merit is psychopathy. It is normal they find this result, but IMO for the wrong reasons.

Jovialis
02-10-19, 16:10
I think these are normal results, as well.

I believe meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for people who have genetically advantageous traits. This study helps to verify that belief. Because it provides individuals the platform to exploit those traits to their advantage, for great incentives.

bigsnake49
02-10-19, 18:44
You could have the greatest genes in the world. If you are not willing to put in the work, you will hit the wall at some point. Intelligence will only take you so far.

Angela
02-10-19, 18:56
I think these are normal results, as well.

I believe meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for people who have genetically advantageous traits. This study helps to verify that belief. Because it provides individuals the platform to exploit those traits to their advantage, for great incentives.

Completely agree.

To BigSnake's point, yes, you do have to apply yourself as well, but it's just not as MUCH work. It already shows up in high school students. What takes some students an hour or hour and a half to master takes others four hours to master.

I also think that to some degree conscientiousness and a propensity for hard work are heritable.

It's not "fair", but nature isn't fair.

Torturing low performing students by hours of after school drilling is not the answer.

Ailchu
02-10-19, 20:25
really arguable. what are the good genes in your opinion? in terms of iq it really might have an effect. still, people who study social studies, economics or law could be complete failures in natural sciences and yet be extremely successfull.

in many other traits it certainly isn't true.

you often just need to exceed in one field and you can be successfull today.

Angela
02-10-19, 20:54
You're not going to get a law degree with a low IQ. I think I remember a mean of about 117, with doctors having a mean of about 120. Engineers and accountants are around there too. Craftsmen might have a mean of around 100 to 105.

Not saying your verbal scores might not be better than your math/visual scores, but the combined total has to be over a certain level.

Then, there are a lot of other factors that go into where you eventually land in terms of profession.

An immigrant from a country where higher education is out of the question is going to land in a trade or something, raising the median scores for those professions.

Ailchu
02-10-19, 21:49
You're not going to get a law degree with a low IQ. I think I remember a mean of about 117, with doctors having a mean of about 120. Engineers and accountants are around there too. Craftsmen might have a mean of around 100 to 105.

Not saying your verbal scores might not be better than your math/visual scores, but the combined total has to be over a certain level.

Then, there are a lot of other factors that go into where you eventually land in terms of profession.

An immigrant from a country where higher education is out of the question is going to land in a trade or something, raising the median scores for those professions.

couldn't find the number for lawyers. only that the average for college graduates is 110 to 115. to get to university you first have to go through high school or how it's called in english. so there you already have a selection. the iq's of most people leaving there are probably in the range of 100-120. maybe even 110-120. which is not that high. it's better than average. but there are lots of people with that iq range who do not follow an academic career and end up less successfull.

and iq is still something that gets influenced a lot by the environment

and as you said there are other factors that determine where you land.

Jovialis
02-10-19, 23:11
couldn't find the number for lawyers. only that the average for college graduates is 110 to 115. to get to university you first have to go through high school or how it's called in english. so there you already have a selection. the iq's of most people leaving there are probably in the range of 100-120. maybe even 110-120. which is not that high. it's better than average. but there are lots of people with that iq range who do not follow an academic career and end up less successfull.

and iq is still something that gets influenced a lot by the environment

and as you said there are other factors that determine where you land.

I know many lawyers, and they are all extremely intelligent and successful people that graduated from top-tier institutions. It would be laughable to suggest a person of average intelligence can do the rigorous work, and have the commitment they do.

Evolution is driven partly by environmental factors. Thus, the result on genetics is still very salient.

Angela
03-10-19, 00:39
People have been fed a bunch of nonsense about IQ and achievement for decades.

They forgot that what is and should be guaranteed is equality of opportunity, not equality of result. I don't care how much you drill certain kids, they're just not going to be able to get into law school or graduate once they get in. It takes a certain IQ, and even good ability in certain subsets of IQ, like logical thinking.

No, an IQ of between 110-120 is not spectacularly high, but that's a mean. Some people can only get into very sub par law schools. Others get into NYU or Yale. Even so, this is the percentile distribution for IQ.

Only 16% of the population scores 115+ on IQ tests.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-caee2f48b41008a2591b011ad9c8e914-c

People with IQs of 130+ are extremely rare.


What it should do is not lead people to oppress others, but to have more sympathy, and to cut people more of a break.

The MEAN for lawyers is around 120, same as for doctors. The 10% who have low scores must be really old. There's no way you could get in nowadays unless it was through affirmative action.

See:
https://pieceofmind.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/iq-range-occupations1.jpg

bigsnake49
03-10-19, 00:44
We hired a Ph.D. from MIT. He was the laziest, non-productive employ we ever had. Fired him after 6 mos. Never understood why we waited so long.

Angela
03-10-19, 00:48
Maybe he was bored.

My brother is an MIT post graduate, a mechanical engineer and a mathematician, with an IQ over 130.

You might think he was doing nothing if you saw him at work. All that's on his desk is a pad, a pencil, and a computer.

I asked him what he actually does. He said: think. :)

There were Nobel contenders in his division. I don't think they're unproductive.

That said, laziness is a separate trait. There are lazy people everywhere and at all levels. I had to go to Motor Vehicles today. Maybe bureaucrats are the laziest, because they can be.

blevins13
03-10-19, 00:52
We hired a Ph.D. from MIT. He was the laziest, non-productive employ we ever had. Fired him after 6 mos. Never understood why we waited so long.

This is odd....when you say we ....you mean which institution?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Jovialis
03-10-19, 01:24
We hired a Ph.D. from MIT. He was the laziest, non-productive employ we ever had. Fired him after 6 mos. Never understood why we waited so long.
I knew someone in youth that was abysmally terrible at his job working as a clerk in a store. However, he grew up to be a successful banker. Sometimes smart people struggle in jobs that disinterest them.

Joey37
03-10-19, 01:43
My maternal grandfather had an IQ of 136, and he was a banker. My paternal grandfather was an honor roll student at Tilden Technical High in Chicago in the mid 40s. I have an IQ of 125, and also have Asperger's.

davef
03-10-19, 02:47
Different brain regions do different things. An English professor doesn't need a high (or even average) visual or mathematical iq, but that verbal iq obviously needs to shine. The opposite is true for someone in "STEM".

My point is: for certain professions, you only need to be "smart" in a few select areas. Best case scenario is working in a field you enjoy and can naturally excel in

03-10-19, 03:03
As most people will do, I thought I had an above average intelligence. Then I got assigned to the Pentagon and was chagrined to see how truly smart people can be. The elite intellects did rise to the top. It just goes to show you that the reason that things don't get resolved in DC, or places like it, isn't that people are stupid, but that the problems are so intractable.

Ailchu
11-10-19, 23:52
My maternal grandfather had an IQ of 136, and he was a banker. My paternal grandfather was an honor roll student at Tilden Technical High in Chicago in the mid 40s. I have an IQ of 125, and also have Asperger's.

in what year did your grandfather make the IQ test and when did you make yours? also what kind of IQ tests where these?

Jovialis
12-10-19, 00:19
in what year did your grandfather make the IQ test and when did you make yours? also what kind of IQ tests where these?

My IQ was tested to be 143 back in 1992 when I was seven years old. Though I'm not sure what kind of test it was. Nevertheless, I was said to be highly gifted.

bigsnake49
14-10-19, 22:54
This is odd....when you say we ....you mean which institution?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

A 250+ employee division that specializes in energy markets.

Jovialis
16-10-19, 17:26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXTEy1zxXIc

Angela
17-10-19, 19:38
Mothers can quit fighting to get their children into certain classrooms with certain teachers. Well, unless the teacher is a bully and a psycho. There are some of those.

See:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-60508-001

"Classroom-level influences on literacy skills in kindergarten through Grade 2, and on literacy and numeracy skills in Grades 3, 5, 7, and 9, were examined by comparing the similarity of twins who shared or did not share classrooms with each other. We analyzed two samples using structural equation modeling adapted for twin data. The first, Study 1, was of Australia-wide tests of literacy and numeracy, with 1,098; 1,080; 790, and 812 complete twin pairs contributing data for Grades 3, 5, 7, and 9, respectively. The second, Study 2, was of literacy tests from 753 twin pairs from kindergarten through Grade 2, which included a sample of United States and Australian students and was a reanalysis and extension of Byrne et al. (2010). Classroom effects were mostly nonsignificant; they accounted for only 2–3% of variance in achievement when averaged over tests and grades. Although the averaged effects may represent a lower-bound figure for classroom effects, and the design cannot detect classroom influences limited to individual students, the results are at odds with claims in public discourse of substantial classroom-level influences, which are mostly portrayed as teacher effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)"

Messier 67
21-10-19, 06:36
Well, Ivy League schools have that covered. If you are too lucky to be East Asian and thus having a higher IQ, there are higher standards for you to get into certain Ivy League schools. Not only that they label people with epicanthic fold as too boring and too focused on success in academics. Ivy league schools also block Asian students from entering because they lack sport skills other with lower IQs applicants possess.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/harvard-discrimination-trial-reveals-ivy-league-schools-different-sat-standards-for-asian-americans

Angela
21-10-19, 16:09
Well, Ivy League schools have that covered. If you are too lucky to be East Asian and thus having a higher IQ, there are higher standards for you to get into certain Ivy League schools. Not only that they label people with epicanthic fold as too boring and too focused on success in academics. Ivy league schools also block Asian students from entering because they lack sport skills other with lower IQs applicants possess.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/harvard-discrimination-trial-reveals-ivy-league-schools-different-sat-standards-for-asian-americans

Well, to be fair, triple 800s on your SATs don't necessarily mean that you're innovative and creative, or leadership material, which these schools have always seen themselves as, if not creating, then fostering . It's a carry over from earlier times, I admit, but that is indeed part of the context here.

I saw it in the public school my children attended, and in the schools like them in similar communities. There were, of course, the awards for academic excellence, organizations for the students with a certain grade point average, and ones for performance in sports as well. Perhaps the most coveted prizes, however, were those for students who were "scholar athletes".

I understand the logic, although as a student myself that would never have applied to me. Now, perhaps if there was one called "scholar and the arts". :)

Sports do teach leadership and sportsmanship, qualities valued in western societies. It goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. There's nothing like that in East Asian societies, to my knowledge. Nor is there the emphasis on individualism, creativity, etc.

These schools don't want to be peopled totally by students who have spent their entire lives in their parents' homes cramming for tests.

Another lesson from all of this research is that maybe Asian parents should protect their children's sanity and not send them to "after school school" and then Saturday school and never let them see the light of day. Honestly, if you have the gifts you don't need to do that. You'll still get really high SAT scores.

I'm one of those who think the "Tiger Moms" are one step away from being child abusers. The irony is that a lot of their kids probably don't need it. They might very well do just fine academically, if not quite so precociously, perhaps.

bigsnake49
21-10-19, 16:29
Admission to Ivy League schools is becoming a cottage industry. There are cram schools for the SAT, people that prepare you for your interview, advisors for resume padding to show leadership skills, service to the community, etc. My daughter had very high SAT scores and she never prepared for. She never got into resume padding. She had earned a lot of local awards for her writing skills. She did not get accepted into Harvard but she did at Berkeley. She earned two undergraduate degrees in 4 years there and is now a Vice President at a major media company at the tender age of 29. But she busted her butt. On top of her native intelligence she has a tremendous work ethic and she's a great cook. Now if she could clean her room...
We did not force her into after school activities, she dabbled with music but got bored with it, what she has accomplished was due to self motivation.

Ailchu
21-10-19, 20:22
Well, to be fair, triple 800s on your SATs don't necessarily mean that you're innovative and creative, or leadership material, which these schools have always seen themselves as, if not creating, then fostering . It's a carry over from earlier times, I admit, but that is indeed part of the context here.

I saw it in the public school my children attended, and in the schools like them in similar communities. There were, of course, the awards for academic excellence, organizations for the students with a certain grade point average, and ones for performance in sports as well. Perhaps the most coveted prizes, however, were those for students who were "scholar athletes".

I understand the logic, although as a student myself that would never have applied to me. Now, perhaps if there was one called "scholar and the arts". :)

Sports do teach leadership and sportsmanship, qualities valued in western societies. It goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. There's nothing like that in East Asian societies, to my knowledge. Nor is there the emphasis on individualism, creativity, etc.

These schools don't want to be peopled totally by students who have spent their entire lives in their parents' homes cramming for tests.

Another lesson from all of this research is that maybe Asian parents should protect their children's sanity and not send them to "after school school" and then Saturday school and never let them see the light of day. Honestly, if you have the gifts you don't need to do that. You'll still get really high SAT scores.

I'm one of those who think the "Tiger Moms" are one step away from being child abusers. The irony is that a lot of their kids probably don't need it. They might very well do just fine academically, if not quite so precociously, perhaps.

i think the lack of innovation in china is because of their political system. their governement is filled with engineers (here it's filled with lawyers, more scientists wouldn't hurt). they just see the state as a machine that needs to stay oiled and running, giving individualism no value. the governement has way too much power over the universities and you need to deliver there. they can't try out new stuff with uncertain outcome and so there is no innovation. but there is a lot of potential in the chinese population.
they are just suffering from a regime that blocks everything.

however i don't think thats the case with asian americans. and most harvard students probably have a good work ethic and are cramming for tests. maybe the asians just work harder. why punish them?

Jovialis
21-10-19, 21:09
Well, to be fair, triple 800s on your SATs don't necessarily mean that you're innovative and creative, or leadership material, which these schools have always seen themselves as, if not creating, then fostering . It's a carry over from earlier times, I admit, but that is indeed part of the context here.

I saw it in the public school my children attended, and in the schools like them in similar communities. There were, of course, the awards for academic excellence, organizations for the students with a certain grade point average, and ones for performance in sports as well. Perhaps the most coveted prizes, however, were those for students who were "scholar athletes".

I understand the logic, although as a student myself that would never have applied to me. Now, perhaps if there was one called "scholar and the arts". :)

Sports do teach leadership and sportsmanship, qualities valued in western societies. It goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. There's nothing like that in East Asian societies, to my knowledge. Nor is there the emphasis on individualism, creativity, etc.

These schools don't want to be peopled totally by students who have spent their entire lives in their parents' homes cramming for tests.

Another lesson from all of this research is that maybe Asian parents should protect their children's sanity and not send them to "after school school" and then Saturday school and never let them see the light of day. Honestly, if you have the gifts you don't need to do that. You'll still get really high SAT scores.

I'm one of those who think the "Tiger Moms" are one step away from being child abusers. The irony is that a lot of their kids probably don't need it. They might very well do just fine academically, if not quite so precociously, perhaps.

Indeed more, and more studying, isn't necessarily conducive to academic success. I myself rarely studied for more than two hours, and it was usually a day before the test; I did exceptionally well. However, I always paid attention in class, and took meticulous notes, which I would type-out, as part of my studying.

The brain is like a sponge, there is only so much it can absorb at a time.

Angela
21-10-19, 23:31
I don't think all those SAT courses do anything more for students than tinker at the margins of their results. There's a couple of studies where the difference pre and post the course is something like 25 points. Factor that out over the hundreds of dollars the courses cost.

When I took them, and my brother, my parents had no idea they should be paying for these private courses. Their "outdated" and perhaps idealistic attitude was that the test would help us, and the colleges, figure out where we would best fit. There were only two tests then, they were much harder, and I still got 1520 out of 1600, 800 on the verbal and 720 on the math, and that's with English as a second language, and a school that only offered pre-calc. My brother's scores were the exact inverse. Those and his grades still got him into MIT, and, and this is an important and, he didn't have a nervous breakdown over it all. He belonged there, so there was no unnatural stress. He also didn't walk around with his slide rule in his pocket all day, played sports, sang, played an instrument, and had a full social life.

In my experience, the real stars in any field not only have the intellectual capacity needed, they're also creative, in addition to having a lot of energy and the capacity to work hard.

As for why East Asian countries really lack in the creativity department, imo it's more complicated than just their current system of government. To be honest, if you take a look at Chinese history, with a few exceptions they're not responsible for very many innovations of benefit to mankind. So, in some way it's bound up with their culture. Of course, culture is influenced by genetics, and culture drives selection, so it's a very complicated subject.

It's also true that IQ tests are weighted toward "visual" scores, i.e. mathematics, so the supposed East Asian "advantage" of a few points in average IQ is a bit deceptive.

@Ailchu,
I don't think anyone is "punishing" them. If anything, it's their parents who are being punished and the effect on their children is a by-product. The emphasis is too extreme and too one sided. I saw a video on a Chinese American mother whose children didn't have one free moment for a social life, for sports, even just for downtime. After school there was the "after school" for cramming, particularly in math, then an hour and a half for practice on the violin for one child and the piano for another. Saturday was for all day school. That isn't mentally or physically healthy for the child, and people who are the product of that are not good for the health or creativity of a society.

(I particularly didn't understand this mania for instruments. What good for anyone, the child, the society, in producing automatons who can play complicated musical pieces? I always believed in introducing them to everything, as I was introduced to everything, instruments, singing, art, sports or gymnastics, dance etc. If they have an aptitude for it, they'll like it and pursue it, and I supported it all the way. If nothing else, it makes people more well rounded and able to appreciate all that life has to offer. This enforced drill would make any normal child hate it. Look at the children whose parents have ruined them in pursuit of excellence in sport as well as music. It's just stupidly unfair. All the parents are doing is feeding their own ego and drive for status. My father used to say children are your responsibility; they shouldn't be your property).

I understand and support the Ivy League Standards in this regard. They're a reflection of Western values. It wasn't for nothing that the Duke of Wellington supposedly said: "'The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton'".


The Confucian model which Asian parents are following, whether they know it or not, is completely different. It's based on a whole tradition of cramming for grueling exams in order to qualify for bureaucratic positions. That created a society which was static and not innovative at all, and which featured extreme deference to authority and acceptance of the status quo in virtually every aspect of life. That's not a model I would like to see the U.S. adopt.

Messier 67
22-10-19, 01:16
Well, to be fair, triple 800s on your SATs don't necessarily mean that you're innovative and creative, or leadership material, which these schools have always seen themselves as, if not creating, then fostering . It's a carry over from earlier times, I admit, but that is indeed part of the context here.

I saw it in the public school my children attended, and in the schools like them in similar communities. There were, of course, the awards for academic excellence, organizations for the students with a certain grade point average, and ones for performance in sports as well. Perhaps the most coveted prizes, however, were those for students who were "scholar athletes".

I understand the logic, although as a student myself that would never have applied to me. Now, perhaps if there was one called "scholar and the arts". :)

Sports do teach leadership and sportsmanship, qualities valued in western societies. It goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. There's nothing like that in East Asian societies, to my knowledge. Nor is there the emphasis on individualism, creativity, etc.

These schools don't want to be peopled totally by students who have spent their entire lives in their parents' homes cramming for tests.

Another lesson from all of this research is that maybe Asian parents should protect their children's sanity and not send them to "after school school" and then Saturday school and never let them see the light of day. Honestly, if you have the gifts you don't need to do that. You'll still get really high SAT scores.

I'm one of those who think the "Tiger Moms" are one step away from being child abusers. The irony is that a lot of their kids probably don't need it. They might very well do just fine academically, if not quite so precociously, perhaps.

So nerds who excel in Academics are not permitted to go to the highest institutions of learning. The Romans and Greeks would disagree. This is social engineering to reject the brightest and most learned from top colleges.

Angela
22-10-19, 02:39
So nerds who excel in Academics are not permitted to go to the highest institutions of learning. The Romans and Greeks would disagree. This is social engineering to reject the brightest and most learned from top colleges.

Nonsense. There are plenty of "nerds" who get accepted, but they want more than one type of student. SAT scores aren't the be all and end all.

They're looking at the entire person, and they're providing educations for more than just STEM students. Trust me, a LOT of the applicants at certain schools have perfect SAT scores, or close to it, especially now that they've dumbed down the tests. How do you choose from among them? Or, look at it this way: you have one young person with 2400 on the tests, but other than a certain robotic ability on the violin, for example, he doesn't seem to have done anything else but study for thirteen years. You have another student with 2275 on the SATs but she's the captain of her tennis team, plays numerous other sports, sings in her church choir, is Class Treasurer one year, and Class President another, and has done volunteer work at the local animal shelter since Middle School. Oh, and she directs a children's dance group in the summers. Why not accept students like her as well? In fact, someone like her is my bet for someone who's going to be a mover and shaker.

Messier 67
22-10-19, 03:35
My point is the Ivy League schools already know that genes are key to academic success. East Asians have genes that are for academic success. They isolated this 'problem' and the solution is to limit the number of Asian Americans entering Harvard, regardless if every Asian American is a top sports player too.

They know that Asian Americans are too smart and thus would flood Ivy League schools, so they put a literal cap on the number of Asians allowed into Harvard:

'Supporters of the lawsuit said Harvard illegally discriminated against Asian Americans by putting a cap on the number admitted to the university, making it harder for Asian applicants to get in.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/01/harvard-ruling-admissions-racial-bias-asian-americans-latest

Then Ivy League schools hide behind the racist claim that Asians lack personality:

'The group, founded by a longtime affirmative action opponent, Edward Blum, argued that while Asian Americans outperformed other groups on academic measures, stereotyping caused them to receive low scores on subjective “personal” ratings.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/01/harvard-ruling-admissions-racial-bias-asian-americans-latest

They get bullied in junior high and high school because they are nerdy and so smart. Then the colleges put a limit/cap on those who are Asian Americans from entering in because if they let them all on, there would be too many Asian Americans in the Ivy League schools, upsetting the existing WASP and other 'establish' in the Ivy League schools. Asian Americans are a threat to society because they are smart and are being kept down because of the high IQs, so they don't reach their potential at top universities.

And then this is blamed on Asian Americans being too smart and nerdy, lacking 'personality', being too quiet. Nerds are quiet, they simply have to take a public speaking class and they are fine.

Ivy League schools accept average IQ individuals, yet reject a demographic because they excel too much in academics. Even the racist trump administration recognized this. When you are more racist than racist trump who says it is ok to shoot Mexicans in the legs, wow.

The Ancient Greeks would not reject Plato or Socrates from top academics over them not playing basketball. This is uniquely a modern thing to perform social engineering... To get those with lower IQs into colleges where they can get better pay because businesses and corporations place value on Ivy League schools.

This Harvard and Ivy League school policy is as racist as those neo-nazis who don't want Syrian migrants in Europe because of this so-called fake 'white genocide'. They don't want the competition in Europe, they see somebody different and they discriminate. Ivy League schools isolated that Asian Americans have genes to succeed at an academic level, and the WASP and others at Ivy League schools know if they allow every qualified Asian into Ivy League schools, the board would be easily controllable, there would be 'WASP genocide' at Ivy League schools and there would be a replacement of the WASP 'establishment' at Ivy League schools replaced by Asians graduates in 20 years. To stop this genocide, they place caps on Asian Americans entering Harvard and other universities.

My top college professor at the University I attended was an quiet Asian man, because I was one of his top students and the top students in the Department, he tried to get me good internships so that I could excel in employment. He did not need to to play basketball, he simply was a great guy and a great teacher because he had good genes for academics and was very hard working.

This claim that Asians are lacking personality because they are quieter, and lack 'leadership skills' because they are not good at Lacrosse is racist. This is supposedly the top academic venue for top academics, rewards should go to the top academics in the country. I guess Harvard is simply another racist institution that CAPS the number of Asians entering Harvard because the WASPs feel threatened.

Harvard is using the SAT to discriminate against Asians, Asians must score higher on the SATs than those of African descent. This is a total abuse of the SAT system, Harvard is rejecting the intelligent Asians because of SATs, I never said the SAT are end all be all, Harvard does in accepting Asian Americans, or in Harvard's case of rejecting top intelligent Asian Americans.

Angela
22-10-19, 03:47
If, for whatever reason, you want to believe this, go ahead. Everybody seems to want to play the victim card

In my experience it's nonsense. My children's schools are now about one quarter Asian. The East and South Asian students don't go out for sports, they don't participate in student government, or do volunteer activities. It's the same with the parents. They don't join the Parent/Teacher Association, or volunteer at the school, and with the various clubs or teams, or, indeed with the various community organizations. They have no interest in joining the local swim and tennis clubs, or helping out with the Welcome Wagon Association, or the library. It is what it is; it's just a different culture.

Telling the truth about this is not racist; it's an objective description of the reality.

Oh, and someone with all A's, a 2275 SAT and all the AP courses offered on the transcript is not an "average" student. The student I'm talking about is just not a one dimensional young person, and that's good for her, the school she's in, and the future.

The fact that you can't have a civil conversation, even dispute about this without resorting to childish downvoting is part of what I'm talking about; it's a lack of social awareness and understanding of how to function in groups. This kind of attitude, this tribalism, is permeating American society, and it's to its detriment.

Messier 67
22-10-19, 04:09
If, for whatever reason, you want to believe this, go ahead. Everybody seems to want to play the victim card

In my experience it's nonsense. My children's schools are now about one quarter Asian. The East and South Asian students don't go out for sports, they don't participate in student government, or do volunteer activities. It's the same with the parents. They don't join the Parent/Teacher Association, or volunteer at the school, and with the various clubs or teams, or, indeed with the various community organizations. They have no interest in joining the local swim and tennis clubs, or helping out with the Welcome Wagon Association, or the library. It is what it is; it's just a different culture.

Telling the truth about this is not racist; it's an objective description of the reality.

Oh, and someone with all A's, a 2275 SAT and all the AP courses offered on the transcript is not an "average" student. The student I'm talking about is just not a one dimensional young person, and that's good for her, the school she's in, and the future.

The fact that you can't have a civil conversation, even dispute about this without resorting to childish downvoting is part of what I'm talking about; it's a lack of social awareness and understanding of how to function in groups. This kind of attitude, this tribalism, is permeating American society, and it's to its detriment.

While I learned alot from my high IQ Asian Chinese-American professor in college. I learned practically nothing from my four African professors, one professor was trying and I had to instruct the professor in basics of geography. The other three had courses that were thought to be something else, when in fact they were only about how white discriminate against blacks and how blacks don't go to Ivy Leauge schools because of the racism in public schools that keep black kids down because the whites don't value educating blacks.

Every of the three classes of those African professors was like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

(without the murder at the end, you got good grades by saying gender equality and multiculturalism, if you treated the course in any other way, you did not get the favor of the teachers).

There was not anything academic or high IQ about any of the classes I had with African professors. Yet Ivy League schools say those who score less on SAT, have lower IQ and do not succeed well in academics deserve a place in Ivy League schools in place of smart Asians.

Genetics is racist, in a good way. If your parents were civilized and for thousands of years cared about being hard working and studious and placed a focus on family and creativity, you get to have the good genes of acumen in academics. If what your ancestors did was kill and act like uncivilized barbarians focusing on not on cooperation and building, but on destruction and bullying... you are generally don't have good academic genes. Nature is 'racist' in this regard. You say you lose hope in humanity sometimes from the finding, I find hope, hope that those who do good and work hard like Asian Americans, and don't bother people with bombs and mass killings, are rewarded with success. Social engineering is what is truly racist.

Focus on humanity and developing skills to make a better world, and your children will excel in doing this. Do the opposite and your child will be bullies too.

To punish Asians for being too smart a group is to work on the inverse. The Devil works on the inverse. Rewards bad behavior. Punishes good deeds. This social engineering of Harvard and elsewhere is evil. This is why trump won in 2016, the public was sick of this. Most recognize hard work and good results deserve rewards.

The same group that bullies the Syrian migrants and the Mexican migrants are the same group that bullied neolithic EEF. This is partly from genes. Christianity tempered this for 2000 years, but even with Christianity, you had the genocide of Native Americans from the same crowd.

This works for good and bad deeds, love and hate:

https://youtu.be/j1c3EmrySSI?t=2m10s

Angela
22-10-19, 15:15
Messier, never did I advocate that Ivy League schools or ANY university admit students who don't have the ability to perform at the expected level. University is not the place to redress racial imbalances by admitting students to whom you have to teach remedial math and reading and writing. Affirmative action has not worked. Period. All you get is substandard graduates, if they graduate at all, which most don't.

I'm talking about how to choose from among many qualified candidates. Just from my daughter's graduating class, ten students applied to Harvard. They wouldn't have applied if they didn't think they had a shot. They were all straight A students who had taken all AP courses senior year, and probably all had combined SATS of 2250 and above out of 2400. However, you'd see the same situation in every really good school in the tri-state area. Multiply that all over the country. Harvard or any Ivy League school can't take them all. There has to be some way to discriminate among them, and I agree with these schools that strictly looking at SAT scores is not the answer.

As for the following, it's not only vastly incorrect, but it's bizarre. By that standard Germans should have low IQs.

Europeans get no prizes for being humane. For goodness sakes, the Balkan Wars with their mass rape as a tactic of war and their genocide and ethnic cleansing was barely thirty years ago, World War II seventy years ago. I still have some ancient aunts who lived through it. Don't tell me how civilized Germans are. It wasn't just the SS who burned my people alive in their churches. It was the Wehrmacht too. And most of them got away with it. My own people did their share. What is humane in bombing Ethiopian villagers in their huts?

Please.

Messier:
If your parents were civilized and for thousands of years cared about being hard working and studious and placed a focus on family and creativity, you get to have the good genes of acumen in academics. If what your ancestors did was kill and act like uncivilized barbarians focusing on not on cooperation and building, but on destruction and bullying... you are generally don't have good academic genes."

Ailchu
22-10-19, 16:28
but why even make different fixed requirement scores and not just the same range for all ethnicities in which you have to be in in that case? is the average private life really a reason for different score requirements? probably not. asian americans make up only 5.6% of the total american population but they make up 25% of the students that are entering harvard in 2023. harvard and other such universities probably just want to ensure that one ethnicity doesn't take over so they stay ethnically diverse. that has bad but also good sides. though if they really just wanted the best it would look different.

Farstar
22-10-19, 18:15
but why even make different fixed requirement scores and not just the same range for all ethnicities in which you have to be in in that case? is the average private life really a reason for different score requirements? probably not. asian americans make up only 5.6% of the total american population but they make up 25% of the students that are entering harvard in 2023. harvard and other such universities probably just want to ensure that one ethnicity doesn't take over so they stay ethnically diverse. that has bad but also good sides. though if they really just wanted the best it would look different.

The problem with this argument is when there were no Asians being "better", the diversity argument was simply non-existent, and white Americans were 100%.

I am not American, and I am not Asian. But I find highly distressing that a child that deserves, for his/her own merits, to "be there", is just expelled because he is in the "wrong" ethnic group, and instead, others with less merits, "are there" because they are in the "right" ethnic group.

In my opinion, this is simply racism (but a racism that is OK for the "anti-racists").

Ailchu
22-10-19, 18:28
The problem with this argument is when there were no Asians being "better", the diversity argument was simply non-existent, and white Americans were 100%.

I am not American, and I am not Asian. But I find highly distressing that a child that deserves, for his/her own merits, to "be there", is just expelled because he is in the "wrong" ethnic group, and instead, others with less merits, "are there" because they are in the "right" ethnic group.

In my opinion, this is simply racism (but a racism that is OK for the "anti-racists").

as soon as you implement different score requirements, it's racist no matter how you look at it imo. if harvard really looks at a persons private life, and they didn't care about race, there would be no need for a difference in required scores. maybe harvard jusfifies it with an increased diversity at the universities, which leads to higher acceptance and helps to fight racism in the future since different social layers get a chance to climb up the ladder. and an increased diversity might be beneficial for the campus and the scientific community at the university.

Farstar
22-10-19, 20:07
as soon as you implement different score requirements, it's racist no matter how you look at it imo. if harvard really looks at a persons private life, and they didn't care about race, there would be no need for a difference in required scores. maybe harvard jusfifies it with an increased diversity at the universities, which leads to higher acceptance and helps to fight racism in the future since different social layers get a chance to climb up the ladder. and an increased diversity might be beneficial for the campus and the scientific community at the university.

You are accepting my thesis: there is a good racism, and a bad one. The good racism is against Asians. I cannot believe that anybody would support racism against African-Americans, for example, under the argument of the "future common good".

Also, if you want to do a pros&cons analysis of your proposal of "good racism" for the "future common good" (which I deeply dislike), you also need to take into account the negatives: for example, the resentment of the Asians. Or the possibility they leave the country.

Let me recall most of the geniuses in the world were people with clearly not the skills needed for Harvard nowadays (and I am not one of those!). In the end, the person that will solve big scientific problems will not be a person playing well a given sport, but a deeply committed and intelligent person.

bigsnake49
23-10-19, 01:50
Harvard does not owe anybody, anything. They are a private school. They can admit whoever they want. If you want to complain, complain about the legacies and kids of donors or politicians.
Once you are admitted to Harvard you they will not let you fail. They have a stake in admitting people that are successful. I know you think that scientists that win the Nobel Prize are prized at Harvard. But a successful Facebook founder or Microsoft founder will do more for the reputation of Harvard than 10 Nobel prizes for medicine.

As far as East Asians leaving the US, we will survive. And if you have noticed lately, there is a movement to consider national security implications in admitting and or hiring East Asian scientists, particularly Chinese.

Salento
23-10-19, 02:26
Harvard gets Federal Research Grants (my money 😡) and other perks.

Harvard owes me!

Angela
23-10-19, 04:10
Hot off the presses...sort of. :)

"The heritability of intelligence increases linearly from around 20% in infancy to 40 to 50% in adolescence, then 60% in young adulthood, upward to 80% (or even higher) in later adulthood, but probably declines somewhat after age 80./ The full effect of heritabilty occurs by mid-adulthood. This is due to something called the “Wilson Effect” -- a tenet of behavior genetics that, as people age, their genes exert more influence over IQ, and the influence of environmental factors decreases.

https://twitter.com/a_centrism/status/1183214965114712064

It seems the debate is over. Now, we have to make sure the data isn't used for nefarious purposes.

Messier 67
23-10-19, 04:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3lZe2OTBfQ

From the university of California:

Of those factors, moreover, race has become the strongest predictor. Rather than declining in salience, race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education in accounting for test score differences.

As people have stated before, if you want to have high IQ kids, marry somebody who comes from a high IQ family.

Bangladesh is doing the opposite of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley schools that the tech geniuses are sending their kids to, are removing technology from the classroom and teaching them the old fashion way. They recognize that face to face and paper and pen are far more valuable to their kids than technology.

https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-kids-tech-free-red-flag-2018-2

I was telling those in Bangladesh on a forum that simply giving their kids technology will not impart high IQs onto them, technology is a tool, not some panacea to solve education problems. For it made the news that Bangladesh wants to give every student a tablet to learn, and having this technology they think should improve grades. If somebody has difficulty learning from books, technology is not going to solve the problem. With technology, you have access to more information, so yes, technology is great, it destroys old false beliefs because the amount of facts you have at your fingertips. But those who excelled without technology will excel with technology. If you were not interested in learning with books, simply having a tablet is not going to raise IQs.

Messier 67
23-10-19, 04:50
As for the following, it's not only vastly incorrect, but it's bizarre. By that standard Germans should have low IQs.

Europeans get no prizes for being humane. For goodness sakes, the Balkan Wars with their mass rape as a tactic of war and their genocide and ethnic cleansing was barely thirty years ago, World War II seventy years ago. I still have some ancient aunts who lived through it. Don't tell me how civilized Germans are. It wasn't just the SS who burned my people alive in their churches. It was the Wehrmacht too. And most of them got away with it. My own people did their share. What is humane in bombing Ethiopian villagers in their huts?

Please.

Messier:

Christianity for 2000 years sort of tamed barbarism. Allowing Universities to rise and learning and technology to grow. The Church both flourished learning and stifled learning (as was the case of Galileo), but the barbarians that the 'civilized' Romans could not tame were tamed by a religion, which allowed the continuation of Near East and Greco-Roman learning to carry on during the Middle Ages, causing the Industrial Revolution and nearly everything that we think about as modern life.

But as Christianity waned, barbarism returned, as was the case of occult Nazis Germany. The barbarians returned to their ways. The rise of the 'far right' is the continuation of the return.

davef
23-10-19, 06:06
@salento
We both know that any college Ivy league or not is a business and their primary goal is to make money. If it's more profitable to admit people with 2.5 GPA's or chipmunks they will gladly do so.

The majority of the classes i took in college/University taught me how to waste money and time learning
nothing ill ever need to know to excel in the profession I wanted

Angela
23-10-19, 06:14
I completely agree with your post number 47, and partly agree with post number 48.

Where I differ as to the latter is that Christianity either wasn't able to completely tame the beast or actively encouraged him, i.e. the slaughter even of Christians in the Near East during the Crusades, as well, of course, as the near genocide of the Jews in Central Europe, the Albigensian Crusade, etc. Even World War I, which destroyed an entire generation of young men, and was, I think, even bloodier than World War II, was fought with each European country sure that God was on their side.

I will concede that the two worst ideologies ever to spring from the culture of the West, Nazism and Communism, were both atheistic and were sworn enemies of Christianity.

For me, all it proves is what the good sisters taught me: there is no human endeavor or institution which isn't flawed, because they are created by men and men are fatally flawed, men in the universal sense of humankind, of course. :) So, the Church is not, was not, and never could be perfect, as there are no perfect Christians, and never were. It's an aspiration for believers, not an achieved goal.

Salento
23-10-19, 07:29
@salento
We both know that any college Ivy league or not is a business and their primary goal is to make money. If it's more profitable to admit people with 2.5 GPA's or chipmunks they will gladly do so.

The majority of the classes i took in college/University taught me how to waste money and time learning
nothing ill ever need to know to excel in the profession I wanted

I don't think you wasted your money by attending classes unrelated to your Profession.

Besides making money, the main goal of your College was to teach you the basic subject of the career you chose, and to give you a decent General Education.

One can be efficient in math or IT languages, but he/she must also be capable of having a high level conversation in a variety of subjects, and be able to write a comprehensive grammatically perfect letter.

You also want to sound educated when you talk to people, they'll take you more seriously, Smarty Pants :)

Ailchu
24-10-19, 16:59
Hot off the presses...sort of. :)

"The heritability of intelligence increases linearly from around 20% in infancy to 40 to 50% in adolescence, then 60% in young adulthood, upward to 80% (or even higher) in later adulthood, but probably declines somewhat after age 80./ The full effect of heritabilty occurs by mid-adulthood. This is due to something called the “Wilson Effect” -- a tenet of behavior genetics that, as people age, their genes exert more influence over IQ, and the influence of environmental factors decreases.

https://twitter.com/a_centrism/status/1183214965114712064

It seems the debate is over. Now, we have to make sure the data isn't used for nefarious purposes.

the debate is far from over. explain how the average iq in the west was able to increase by 0.3 points every year since the 1930's?

your link leads to twitter profile named "a new radical centrism" with the description "1/ A Daily Thread of Rough Draft Excerpts From an Article I'm Writing on Race and IQ." and there are lots of other posts about race.
but i think high heritability does not mean that the environment has a weaker effect than with low heritability so these results have little value for a discussion about race. so we see, the data is already beeing misused.

Angela
24-10-19, 18:16
You just don't want to accept that you're not going to change someone's IQ by early intervention or playing Mozart to children or reading to them at two. The latter worked for me, and I started reading at about four. That's rare, however. Even my brother didn't read until four almost five, although he was always better than I am at math.

It is what it is. Even by the studies you quoted it's 50-60% heritable. That's why all those tens of millions spent on Head Start have been a total waste of time and money.

Your last sentence is a jumble, but I'll try to respond to what I think you mean. As all the identical twin studies have shown time and time again, home environment has a very small effect. Ask the parents of adopted children. There's even a very recent paper on IQ in Africa which shows the same thing.

The legitimate question is: what then accounts for the remaining percentage if it isn't home environment or the classroom, which have both been shown to have minimum impact. I'm leaning toward the idea it may be something in the in utero environment, or epigenetics. They certainly should be investigated.

I don't see any point in continuing the discussion. If you don't want to accept the scientific evidence, don't. It's still a free country, sort of...

Ailchu
24-10-19, 19:26
You just don't want to accept that you're not going to change someone's IQ by early intervention or playing Mozart to children or reading to them at two. The latter worked for me, and I started reading at about four. That's rare, however. Even my brother didn't read until four almost five, although he was always better than I am at math.


8
good for you (heritability is lowest during early childhood btw so it might not even be that rare with given similar environment), but what exactly makes you think that i don't accept scientific evidence? you can't use the heritability numbers of the study in question for a discussion about iq differences between racial groups. so the person from twitter is misusing the data. it seems like the person doesn't understand heritability.
i never said there is no correlation between genes and iq but the discussion is far from over.

and explain how the average iq was able to increase by 0.3% every year? only because of genetic reasons?



"The legitimate question is: what then accounts for the remaining percentage if it isn't home environment or the classroom, which have both been shown to have minimum impact. I'm leaning toward the idea it may be something in the in utero environment, or epigenetics. They certainly should be investigated."

it could be epigenetics, uterus environment but it could also just be random effects for example.

Angela
24-10-19, 19:45
good for you but what exactly makes you think that i don't accept scientific evidence? you can't use the heritability numbers of the study in question for a discussion about iq differences between racial groups. so the person from twitter is misusing the data. it seems like the person doesn't understand heritability.
i never said there is no correlation between genes and iq but the discussion is far from over.

and explain how the average iq was able to increase by 0.3% every year? only because of genetic reasons?




it could be epigenetics, uterus environment but it could also just be random effects for example.

Last comment.

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

The pen and ink, or now, computer tests, (NOT the ones with 20 questions you can take online, but the kind administered in schools), aren't as accurate, and rely far more on learned abilities. If a paper is tracking changes in IQ over time the latter kind of test may be measuring more than just raw ability. In the same way, SAT scores are not really synonymous with IQ, because you can't do a verbal analogy without having learned the meaning of the words, or a trigonometry problem without having taken trigonometry. Of course, it's a rough indication, because if you don't have a certain level of cognitive function, you can't learn those things.

The one on one hours long test is a much better approximation of IQ.

I never said the particular study I was discussing said anything about race. I was talking about IQ in general. However, there are plenty of papers which do study it. All you have to do is read them. I would guard against relying upon any work by Lynn, however. His methodology was shockingly poor, mixing all sorts of testing, and not strictly IQ testing, and he even used what he called "approximations", if you can believe it.

Jovialis
24-10-19, 19:51
Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

That is like the one I took, when I was in 2nd grade. My parents took me to be evaluated by a professional, at a hospital.

He asked me a series of questions, as well as to draw a picture of my family. I recall, one of the questions, was if I could explain what hieroglyphics were.

Ailchu
24-10-19, 20:05
Last comment.

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

The pen and ink, or now, computer tests, (NOT the ones with 20 questions you can take online, but the kind administered in schools), aren't as accurate, and rely far more on learned abilities. If a paper is tracking changes in IQ over time the latter kind of test may be measuring more than just raw ability. In the same way, SAT scores are not really synonymous with IQ, because you can't do a verbal analogy without having learned the meaning of the words, or a trigonometry problem without having taken trigonometry. Of course, it's a rough indication, because if you don't have a certain level of cognitive function, you can't learn those things.

The one on one hours long test is a much better approximation of IQ.

I never said the particular study I was discussing said anything about race. I was talking about IQ in general. However, there are plenty of papers which do study it. All you have to do is read them. I would guard against relying upon any work by Lynn, however. His methodology was shockingly poor, mixing all sorts of testing, and not strictly IQ testing, and he even used what he called "approximations", if you can believe it.

so your answer fo the increasing average iq over the last few years is a change in iq test quality and wrong methodology? i can't argue against that since i'm no expert but it seems that this is not the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Proposed_explanations
"because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabulary), arithmetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic) or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years. Meta-analytic findings indicate that Flynn effects occur for tests assessing both fluid and crystallized abilities. For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#cite_note-Neisser97-11)"

it could be that your raw ability like for example spatial thinking can be increased through practice too.
about race and iq there are indeed plenty of papers but their conclusions all vary.

Angela
24-10-19, 20:26
so your answer fo the increasing average iq over the last few years is a change in iq test quality and wrong methodology? i can't argue against that since i'm no expert but it seems that this is not the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Proposed_explanations
"because children attend school longer now and have become much more familiar with the testing of school-related material, one might expect the greatest gains to occur on such school content-related tests as vocabulary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabulary), arithmetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic) or general information. Just the opposite is the case: abilities such as these have experienced relatively small gains and even occasional decreases over the years. Meta-analytic findings indicate that Flynn effects occur for tests assessing both fluid and crystallized abilities. For example, Dutch conscripts gained 21 points during only 30 years, or 7 points per decade, between 1952 and 1982.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#cite_note-Neisser97-11)"

it could be that your raw ability like for example spatial thinking can be increased through practice too.
about race and iq there are indeed plenty of papers but their conclusions all vary.

The ones with good methodology, large numbers of samples, etc. all come to the same conclusion. There are differences in IQ by continent wide "breeding" groups, to use the approved terminology.

You won't be persuaded, so there's no point in continuing.

Jovialis
24-10-19, 20:38
It should also be noted that the stultifying rigidness of lower-IQ individuals in academic administrations are a detriment to society as a whole. But I guess, paying people not to think, but to do, is how left-wing policies are exacted. They're like petty dictators at the cash register, that don't want to give you the sale, until the manager has to step in.

I remember having to deal with admins was an absolute nightmare. These people obviously don't care about their tasks, and are only there to collect a paycheck.

Jovialis
24-10-19, 20:54
It should also be noted that the stultifying rigidness of lower-IQ individuals in academic administrations are a detriment to society as a whole. But I guess, paying people not to think, but to do, is how left-wing policies are exacted. They're like petty dictators at the cash register, that don't want to give you the sale, until the manager has to step in.

I remember having to deal with admins was an absolute nightmare. These people obviously don't care about their tasks, and are only there to collect a paycheck.

I know there will be massive upheaval in the future, due to automations. But I find myself caring less, and less about what will become of people who will no longer have utility.

davef
25-10-19, 05:46
Last comment.

Real IQ tests require a one on one interaction with an educational psychologist and take at least 6-8 hours to complete.

The pen and ink, or now, computer tests, (NOT the ones with 20 questions you can take online, but the kind administered in schools), aren't as accurate, and rely far more on learned abilities. If a paper is tracking changes in IQ over time the latter kind of test may be measuring more than just raw ability. In the same way, SAT scores are not really synonymous with IQ, because you can't do a verbal analogy without having learned the meaning of the words, or a trigonometry problem without having taken trigonometry. Of course, it's a rough indication, because if you don't have a certain level of cognitive function, you can't learn those things.

The one on one hours long test is a much better approximation of IQ.

I never said the particular study I was discussing said anything about race. I was talking about IQ in general. However, there are plenty of papers which do study it. All you have to do is read them. I would guard against relying upon any work by Lynn, however. His methodology was shockingly poor, mixing all sorts of testing, and not strictly IQ testing, and he even used what he called "approximations", if you can believe it.

I agree with you 100 percent about how sat scores aren't synonymous with iq. As an example, I hated and I mean HATED math and English in high school. They were SO BORING to this student with ADHD and anything that is boring to someone with ADHD does not gain entrance to the brain.

I would've done better if I had paid attention in math and English class and if i had been lucky enough to be quizzed on the vocabulary words I knew.

Now fast forward a decade and a half and I'm sure all my high school math teachers would be stunned by all the A's I got in college math with two years of calculus, physics, my degree in computer science and the fact that I was an honor student in grad school. Im also quite successful in my career which is most important of all. I started paying attention in college math classes bc I knew they were relevant to my degree.

My point is that this (sat) test isn't an absolute predictor of success in college or life but that's my own opinion. Cognitive capacity or IQ is a much stronger predictor

Salento
25-10-19, 07:26
Some people thought I was short in middle / high school, lol
in reality a skipped 2 years.

It wasn't because I was smarter than the others (maybe just a bit).

I attended a private elementary school run by Catholic Nuns.

My education level and attitude at that age, was much higher than the average State Middle Schooler.

Nuns were tough and scary, who knows, maybe their tactics increased my IQ :angry: :)

Angela
25-10-19, 15:14
Some people thought I was short in middle / high school, lol
in reality a skipped 2 years.

It wasn't because I was smarter than the others (maybe just a bit).

I attended a private elementary school run by Catholic Nuns.

My education level and attitude at that age, was much higher than the average State Middle Schooler.

Nuns were tough and scary, who knows, maybe their tactics increased my IQ :angry: :)

If any teaching method could, it would be theirs. :)

I'm assuming your experience was like mine: ruthless grounding in the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. I've never regretted that. I can still diagram a sentence. :) You'd never have to take remedial English and math in Junior College if the nuns had the teaching of primary school students.

Of course, there was also the social training. I saw one of the sisters sailing into the boys' restroom at full tilt to break up a fight, and grabbing big twelve year old boys by the ear to get them to the wash basin to have their mouths washed out with soap for swearing. Those pointers for the blackboard came in handy too. Whack! Right across the fingers. Or, they just used their hands. My husband was called to the front of the classroom for throwing spitballs. She slapped him right across the face. He hounded his mother until she sent him to public school. Wimp! :)

Today, they'd get arrested.

Of course, I was an angel in deportment, played Mary at the May processionals and nuns in the school plays, so it was fine for me. :)
Only time I ever got hit was with the pointer when I made mistakes at the piano or in penmanship. I can tell you my script even today is like calligraphy. :)

I think psychologists today would call that adapted behavior!

Jovialis
25-10-19, 15:37
My father told me about his experience going to school in Italy. He had a really mean draconian teacher in 5th grade, that used to hit the children on the hands with a ruler for misbehaving. One day my father simply had laughed at what another student was doing, and as a result, he was beaten very badly for it. My Uncle, who is 15 years older than my father, went down to the school the next day, and told the teacher:

“If I ever see my brother come home with bruises again, I’m coming back here, and I’m going to throw you head first through the window.”

However, the next day, my father was expelled from school because of that.

Salento
25-10-19, 16:25
@Angela Suor Giulia harsh teaching methods Transcended Continents :)

She often said:

... You will not like them, but those who push you to do better, are those that really care about you.

... Those you like because they're easy on you, most likely don’t care about you.

multi tool teaching method :petrified: (ouch) :grin::

https://www.fabricland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/P4270146.jpg


@Jovialis If we complained about treatment at school, We'd have been told: what did you do to the Suora to deserve this (made it even worse at home :)

Angela
25-10-19, 16:29
My father told me about his experience going to school in Italy. He had a really mean draconian teacher in 5th grade, that used to hit the children on the hands with a ruler for misbehaving. One day my father simply had laughed at what another student was doing, and as a result, he was beaten very badly for it. My Uncle, who is 15 years older than my father, went down to the school the next day, and told the teacher:

“If I ever see my brother come home with bruises again, I’m coming back here, and I’m going to throw you head first through the window.”

However, the next day, my father was expelled from school because of that.

It was like that all over; there are always going to be some sadists around...

From "How Green Was My Valley", set in Wales and one of my favorite movies of all time. The whole film is on youtube. This is some friends of the family of an abused boy taking matters into their own hands:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTv9pmnA0m8

Angela
25-10-19, 16:59
@Angela Suor Giulia harsh teaching methods Transcended Continents :)

She often said:

... You will not like them, but those who push you to do better, are those that really care about you.

... Those you like because they're nice to you, most likely don’t care about you.

multi tool teaching method :petrified: (ouch) :grin::

https://www.fabricland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/P4270146.jpg


@Jovialis If we complained about treatment at school, We'd have been told: what did you do to the Suora to deserve this (made it even worse at home :)

I don't even want to think about what my father would have done to me if I'd been disrespectful to the nuns, or acted up.

I did hate some of my sisters, or Mothers as we called them. There was no corporal punishment: all very adapted teen-age girls, although that's hard to believe looking at teenagers today, so there was no need. I may have relayed this before. In senior year, when I had already turned 18, we went on a field trip to a museum. I drove some of the girls in my car. Before we left the museum, I will admit I was told in no uncertain terms that I was not to stop off anywhere on the way back to the school. I will also admit that I disobeyed by stopping off at a Carvel so we could get ice cream cones. Believe it or not, one of the girls had an attack of conscience and reported it. I was hauled off to the principal's office, along with the others. She ranted at us for awhile, at our lack of obedience, dishonesty etc. and all the other girls started crying. I refused to cry. If she had reacted in a different way it might have been different, but as it was my pride wouldn't permit it. She flew into a worse rage, telling me she was going to put it into my transcript. I told her to go ahead, that I was sure the college admissions officers would have a good laugh. I think the only reason I didn't get expelled was because we were like a week away from graduation, and maybe my comment hit home.

The one I really hated was my theology teacher though. She was a brilliant woman with a master's in theology, and wasted at secondary school level. I had no quarrel with her teachings, although I disagreed where I though logic didn't support her. It was that she preached love, love, love all the time, and yet she was a nasty, mean spirited woman with not a shred of generosity in her heart. When one of the girls got pregnant, the first in the history of the school, she was the one who insisted she be expelled right before senior year exams, and that it indeed be written on her transcript. Plus, the things she said about her...

My sense of justice and my hatred of hypocrisy and cant has been with me since childhood, and I detested her for it, as she knew.

Yet...

I cannot tell you how many times over the years since I have heard her voice in my head, not only on intellectual matters, but indeed on matters of conscience.

I would never give her the satisfaction of saying so, however.

I suppose she would have said, "Do as I say, not as I do." That's hard for a teen-ager to understand, though.

davef
25-10-19, 17:21
My dad was smacked by a nun too when he was a child (and yes she used a ruler)

In public school he had his mouth "washed" with soap for using the wrong language

Salento
25-10-19, 17:25
To be honest, the Nuns were tougher to the girls than the boys.

They wanted to instill a sense of curiosity, confidence and competition among students.

... high expectations.

I'm not sure, but it’s possible that was easier with the boys than the girls (not that much about academics. It was more about approach, resiliency and behavior)

Obviously, there's always the exception :)

Angela
25-10-19, 20:19
To be honest, the Nuns were tougher to the girls than the boys.

They wanted to instill a sense of curiosity, confidence and competition among students.

... high expectations.

I'm not sure, but it’s possible that was easier with the boys than the girls (not that much about academics. It was more about approach, resiliency and behavior)

Obviously, there's always the exception :)

It was very different at my high school, perhaps because it was the U.S. not Italy, or because it was all girls, or maybe it was that particular Order of nuns; they were a French Canadienne order, hence the emphasis on French and part of the reason why I'm a bit of a Francophile.

The mantra was always that you could do anything the boys could do, and that applied to everything from academics to clubs to sports. I went to the National Teen U.N. debates as one of the delegates from my school. I gave them hell too. :)

I know from lots of other graduates, the vast majority of whom are really grateful for our experience with them, that there is a general feeling that because there were no boys in the school to intimidate the less confident girls (the ones who didn't have a father like mine, perhaps), there was more opportunity to develop leadership skills. We had no choice; we had to run all the clubs, hold all the student government positions, put out the paper and yearly journal, "man" the sports teams. :) It was great practice for the rest of our lives. That's why I'm a big believer in single sex education for girls. It's not very good for boys, imo, unfortunately.

I, and others, have the distinct impression that the nuns chafed themselves at the authority exerted over them by priests and the male hierarchy, and part of that came out in the values they tried to inculcate in us. I always thought Mother Superior deliberately chose a complete nonentity as our chaplain. He did what she told him to do. :)Since it was post Vatican II, that meant we literally, within certain parameters, of course, designed our own services, music etc. He also didn't teach theology. I don't think they believed he was up to it. :)

ihype02
13-02-20, 13:48
IQ tests have shown to have 57% to 78% genetic inheritance but sometimes even 80%.
With that being said, some people have simply not managed to explore the full length of their intelligence. I, myself, have seen an updrage of my intelligence thanks to the Math classes I have taken, in High School to University math with proofs and theorical problems from Combinatorics, Real Analysis, Euclidean Geometry etc.

Look at those Middle Eastern countries with an average IQ of 80-85, whose ancestors build great civilisations. 2000 years ago who do you think had the greater average IQ, Mediterranean people or North-Western Europeans?

Farstar
13-02-20, 15:47
Nassim Taleb makes the argument that IQ tests do not need to measure intelligence per se. For sure, they measure unintelligence (but as Taleb argues, many crude measurements would also do that).

But IQ tests could also be measuring "submissiveness towards a Master" (combined in some way with "pure" intelligence).

And here Taleb has a point, since IQ tests are almost always consisting of stupid questions. So, people enjoying solving stupid questions posed by others may "look like" to have a higher IQ (since if you enjoy doing something, you put more effort).

It could be "pure" intelligence cannot be measured by IQ tests ... but only by "doing" things.

This interpretation "solves" two of the main arguments in favor of interpreting IQ tests as a form of "pure" intelligence:

- All types of IQ tests give, roughly, the same answer, so they may be measuring the same thing (i.e. intelligence): but for all tests, they are encouraging people loving to do tests. So it makes sense that "good slaves" have good marks in all kind of "stupid" tests
- IQ test results correlate well with how life will treat you: yes, slaves usually have decent lives, since their submissiveness is usually well paid at the corporate level

This description fits me pretty well: IQ tests tell me I am much more intelligent than what I feel I am, given my present and past actions. And I recall I liked doing IQ tests, when I did one (I am embarrassed to acknowledge that). And lots of time during my life, I have been a "good slave". Not anymore.

Angela
13-02-20, 18:01
Sorry, Farstar. I think Taleb is dead wrong on this, and it wouldn't be the first time.

The only true measure of "intelligence" through testing is a one on one test with an educational psychologist. It takes hours. A lot of it involves numbers.

Here it's done whenever there's a suspicion that a child is either gifted or has learning difficulties. In each case, the child belongs in special programs.

Whether someone uses their intelligence to their full capacity is another issue. My brother was a bit hyperactive in elementary school, and wanted to be "one of the guys" in junior high school. A perspicacious teacher recognized his potential, however, had him tested, and told my parents they had to get him to buckle down and study. My parents were flabbergasted; they had thought he was their "less intelligent" child. Well, he wound up getting a PHD from MIT.

IQ comparisons between groups is difficult, especially if you're comparing groups across the world living in extremely different conditions. In many cases you don't have a level playing field; there are differences in nutrition, disease levels, schooling, and other factors. As just one, children in many parts of the world have lived through incredibly traumatic situations, including almost constant violence.

I personally believe differences will still exist, but it's important to consider all the factors. It's also important to understand whom you're testing. If you look at the number of people in the U.S. who have advanced degrees, South Asians are way at the top. Is that because South Asians "genetically" have a higher IQ? Not if you look at scores in India they don't. The fact is that only high caste educated people manage to get into the U.S. It's completely different for Mexicans. Or, look at the "brain drain" many countries have experienced. Prior to 1945 Palestinians were known to have high levels of intellectual achievement from the things I've read. Being packed into camps has put an end to that, as has the migration of many Palestinians abroad.

Most importantly of all, whatever differences we may find exist ARE ABSOLUTELY no excuse for mistreatment, discrimination etc.

Maybe all of this will go away when we can genetically modify embryos for intelligence. It's absolutely clear to me that there will be no role for even average IQ people in the "Brave New World" of the future.

Northener
14-02-20, 13:34
I think these are normal results, as well.

I believe meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for people who have genetically advantageous traits. This study helps to verify that belief. Because it provides individuals the platform to exploit those traits to their advantage, for great incentives.

I don't know pure meritocratic society's. It is not like in a running competition that all participant are lined up in a kind of row..... I know competitive society's partly a sake, it's dynamic....but partly doom because people tend to behave like a rat pack, I see the massive use of all kind of drugs as a side effect for example. Rat race to the top.

Abba already forty years ago....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU

The winner takes it all the loser has to fall.

I like society's were there is room for people who wan't to develop themselves (cognitive, creative) but were there is an eye for people who have less or other kind capacities (then iq).

Because when capacities are mostly genetic how fair is a meritocratic society then? Because how to win the 100 meter when you have less abilities than you neighbor in line someone like Usain Bolt? Of course all have the some chance they are standing on the same line as Bolt.....but you don't need much imagination to see what is going to happen after the start.

When people with for examples lesser iq becoming the 'deplorables' and are seen as a bunch of loser.....in the end the society will be gloomy.

IQ is may be overrated other capacities can also make society great!!!

An old lesson for meritocrats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy

MichaelYoung:

'It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.'

Northener
14-02-20, 17:33
Study results suggest genetic influence on social outcomes greater in meritocratic than communistic societies:

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-results-genetic-social-outcomes-greater.html

From April 2018

The founding fathers had a very good statement: 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

The societies/ nations that still orientated by this principles are market economies but tempered and they are the best societies for the 'pursuit of happiness'.

The hard boiled meritocratic countries (like the US) seem to have created a deadlock.....the US has fallen down deep.....

https://www.tampabay.com/data/2019/03/20/us-falls-in-world-happiness-report-finland-named-happiest-country/

Angela
14-02-20, 18:42
^^What utter nonsense. We're leaving Europe in the dust. Russia isn't even in the running.

As they used to say in the Soviet Union: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

Bernie would love you on his team. He thought the bread lines in Socialist Nicaragua were a good sign. Supposedly, in capitalist countries the poor starve and the rich get fat, so lines were a good sign that everyone was more equal. First of all, no one in America is starving unless they're mentally ill or drug addicts. Why the mentally ill aren't in hospitals is a whole other issue. Second of all, it never occurs to him that the optimal situation is not to ration the little that is produced in communist countries, but to have a robust capitalist economy which can produce more so food doesn't have to be rationed, and no one has to stand in line for food.

As for division, I guess you don't pay attention to British news. Brexit completely divided the country. The "Woke" Revolution is dividing people there as much as here.

As the right wing nationalist parties gain traction we'll see how much division there is in Europe.

Of course, from my point of view, Europeans are all Socialists; it's just that some of them are also racists.

Northener
14-02-20, 21:21
^^What utter nonsense. We're leaving Europe in the dust. Russia isn't even in the running.

As they used to say in the Soviet Union: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

Bernie would love you on his team. He thought the bread lines in Socialist Nicaragua were a good sign.

As for division, I guess you don't pay attention to British news. Brexit completely divided the country. The "Woke" Revolution is dividing people there as much as here.

As the right wing nationalist parties gain traction we'll see how much division there is in Europe.

Of course, from my point of view, Europeans are all Socialists; it's just that some of them are also racists.

Yes when you are only looking superficial in numbers.....but the quality of life of the nation as a whole is dropping down!You exemplify the problem, short term policy only quantity not looking at quality.....pursuit of hapinnes long gone.

from the article:

Except for its 10th-place ranking for income, the US did not rank in the top 10 on measures that make up a happy country in the report, placing 12th for generosity, 37th for social support, 61st for freedom and 42nd for corruption.


Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness???? nada.


This year’s report provides sobering evidence of how addictions are causing considerable unhappiness and depression in the U.S.,” said report co-author Jeffrey Sachs. “Addictions come in many forms, from substance abuse to gambling to digital media. The compulsive pursuit of substance abuse and addictive behaviors is causing severe unhappiness.”From a policy standpoint, Sachs says the U.S. has failed to react to the issues it faces, such as obesity rates being among the highest in the world; rising rates of adolescent depression; rising age-adjusted suicide rates since the year 2000; a searing opioid epidemic; and falling overall life expectancy.


To parafase Shakespeare 'there is something rotten in the US state......'

And let's not forget you already have a right wing nationalist in the White House! Big walls on the border and shooting Mexicans through the knees even the AIFD in Germany is this too blunt...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49901878

See the Barr case this week....how about the trias politica? The founding fathers are turning around in their graves!

I guess the dystopia of the meritocracy has already delivered Trump.....go Bernie go!

Angela
14-02-20, 21:28
Again, what utter nonsense.

At last count (as of February 6,2020) 90% of Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup's four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."

"The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy (https://news.gallup.com/poll/276503/happiness-not-quite-widespread-usual.aspx)."

But of course, you know better how people feel, and whether their feelings have value.

Why don't you worry about your own country? Americans are doing very well, thank you very much.

Northener
14-02-20, 21:37
Again, what utter nonsense.

At last count (as of February 6,2020) 90% of Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup's four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."

"The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy (https://news.gallup.com/poll/276503/happiness-not-quite-widespread-usual.aspx)."

But of course, you know better how people feel, and whether their feelings have value.

Why don't you worry about your own country? Americans are doing very well, thank you very much.

No I can quote fortune, not Bernies supporters magazine isn't it?
https://fortune.com/2019/03/20/u-s-unhappiest-its-ever-been/

It's based on a serious report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

see:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/

Of course all fake news.....huh.

By the way my country is on number five!

Northener
14-02-20, 21:48
Again, what utter nonsense.

At last count (as of February 6,2020) 90% of Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nine in 10 Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life, a new high in Gallup's four-decade trend. The latest figure bests the previous high of 88% recorded in 2003."

"The percentage of Americans who report being satisfied with their personal life is similar to the 86% who said in December that they were very or fairly happy (https://news.gallup.com/poll/276503/happiness-not-quite-widespread-usual.aspx)."

But of course, you know better how people feel, and whether their feelings have value.

Why don't you worry about your own country? Americans are doing very well, thank you very much.

But on topic I'm convinced that a better quality of life, a good acces to public services (like schools but also hospitals) that are of excellent quality provides the best conditions for raising creativity and making use of the iq we seem to have inherited from our parents!

Angela
14-02-20, 21:52
No I can quote fortune, not Bernies supporters magazine isn't it?
https://fortune.com/2019/03/20/u-s-unhappiest-its-ever-been/

It's based on a serious report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

see:
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/

Of course all fake news.....huh.

By the way my country is on number five!

Thanks, but I'll stick with Gallup, not some b.s. poll by the U.N., that cesspit.

Number 5. Well, well, I guess you like yourselves. I guess it's only outsiders who think the Dutch are the most obnoxious people in Europe.

No point in continuing to discuss things with brain washed socialists. OUT.

Northener
14-02-20, 22:00
Thanks, but I'll stick with Gallup, not some b.s. poll by the U.N., that cesspit.

Number 5. Well, well, I guess you like yourselves. I guess it's only outsiders who think the Dutch are the most obnoxious people in Europe.

No point in continuing to discuss things with brain washed socialists. OUT.

Mind you this world un report is from Jeffrey Sachs, the man of the shock therapy for ex communist countries, not a Bernie supporter isn't it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

No Dutch is not heaven on earth....problems enough still indeed the quality of life is sincere good.

And guess what Angela I'm a happy guy because I life in the happiest city of the country.....

https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/dutch-cities-rate-highly-quality-life


From all the cities surveyed, Groningen (http://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-page/dutch-cities/groningen-netherlands) ranked equal third, behind Aalborg in Denmark and Hamburg in Germany, and equal to Zurich, Oslo and Copenhagen.

and yes this makes me a little bit proud......

But all fata morgana of a social democrat of course....no doubts.

I saw you mentioned not a single word about the content of that report but minor detail.

Jovialis
15-02-20, 03:43
Mind you this world un report is from Jeffrey Sachs, the man of the shock therapy for ex communist countries, not a Bernie supporter isn't it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

No Dutch is not heaven on earth....problems enough still indeed the quality of life is sincere good.

And guess what Angela I'm a happy guy because I life in the happiest city of the country.....

https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/dutch-cities-rate-highly-quality-life



and yes this makes me a little bit proud......

But all fata morgana of a social democrat of course....no doubts.

I saw you mentioned not a single word about the content of that report but minor detail.

I am happy, and proud to be wealthy here in the USA.

I don't need articles or studies to tell me that.

15-02-20, 05:05
Amen to that. Life is good here, I hope it is for Northerner as well . . .

Northener
15-02-20, 09:45
I am happy, and proud to be wealthy here in the USA.

I don't need articles or studies to tell me that.

Be my guest Jovialis, and I like those founding father spirit for example too.

But the studies prove: wealthy but the quality of life is getting down.

But I guess many people in Europe (am I in Eupedia or what?) are kind of tired of that 'America great again' and 'number one' etc. They or we look through it.....you also have some shadow sides. Every country has it...(but I see constant ignore or denial).

But no: every time is the story ' we leave you Europeans in the dust' and such like big talk. Do you have any idea that this kind of big talk is leading to the reaction of (ahum intelligent) people in the rest of the world let's have a look at that number one...(obvious not in the quality of life).

Farstar
15-02-20, 09:58
The idea of self-reported quality of life is bogus. An example: in Spain, healthcare is completely free (exception: dentists). Spaniards take this for granted. Spaniards that have never lived abroad cannot even think that healthcare could be not free, and that you need to limit the use of healthcare because you do not have enough money.

So, Spaniards may have a lowish self-reported quality of life for some particular reason, but they do not give any weight to the fact they have healthcare for free.

Instead, for many citizens of the world, their self-reported quality of life would explode upwards if they had free healthcare.

Also, there is culture: some cultures are used to criticize themselves often, others do not. I criticize Spain a lot, since I think this is my patriotic duty as a Catalan. Instead, Americans probably would feel they are being unpatriotic if they complain about their country. Also, is there data for North Koreans?

Northener
15-02-20, 11:09
The idea of self-reported quality of life is bogus. An example: in Spain, healthcare is completely free (exception: dentists). Spaniards take this for granted. Spaniards that have never lived abroad cannot even think that healthcare could be not free, and that you need to limit the use of healthcare because you do not have enough money.

So, Spaniards may have a lowish self-reported quality of life for some particular reason, but they do not give any weight to the fact they have healthcare for free.

Instead, for many citizens of the world, their self-reported quality of life would explode upwards if they had free healthcare.

Also, there is culture: some cultures are used to criticize themselves often, others do not. I criticize Spain a lot, since I think this is my patriotic duty as a Catalan. Instead, Americans probably would feel they are being unpatriotic if they complain about their country. Also, is there data for North Koreans?

Ok besides that, there are some indicators like overweight or the use of drugs and medicines are clear done by measurements (not self report).

By the way what's wrong with self-report ok it is subjective but well being is subjective.....

And about free healthcare as such doesn't say anything about the quality of healthcare.

Your point about culture is IMO interesting, although the quality of life is the best of Europe the people here are kind of reserved, people in my region (North Dutch) dislike big talk that kind of attitude meats at least irony. But I guess we share this with the North Germans/ Scandics.

Jovialis
15-02-20, 11:13
Be my guest Jovialis, and I like those founding father spirit for example too.

But the studies prove: wealthy but the quality of life is getting down.

But I guess many people in Europe (am I in Eupedia or what?) are kind of tired of that 'America great again' and 'number one' etc. They or we look through it.....you also have some shadow sides. Every country has it...(but I see constant ignore or denial).

But no: every time is the story ' we leave you Europeans in the dust' and such like big talk. Do you have any idea that this kind of big talk is leading to the reaction of (ahum intelligent) people in the rest of the world let's have a look at that number one...(obvious not in the quality of life).

Yes you are on Eupedia, but this thread is about academic success being linked to genes. The article states that people with genetic advantages are able utilize meritocratic systems to their advantage. Socialist societies are focused on engineering economic and social equity, via the state. Thus, socialist societies will have to stifle the people with the inherent ability to out perform their peers. Ergo, my statement is correct; that meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for genetically advantageous people.

Personally, I would have no reason to support socialism, given my circumstances. However, even less fortunate people, who do have the inherent ability to achieve great success are smart enough, and hungry enough to advance their lives. At any rate, life is not fair, no matter how much central planning goes into governance. Some will succeed, and some will not; that is the natural order of things. But it is bad for humanity to hobble the most talented and gifted for a futile cause, which is how I see it.

Northener
15-02-20, 11:50
Yes you are on Eupedia, but this thread is about academic success being linked to genes. The article states that people with genetic advantages are able utilize meritocratic systems to their advantage. Socialist societies are focused on engineering economic and social equity, via the state. Thus, socialist societies will have to stifle the people with the inherent ability to out perform their peers. Ergo, my statement is correct; that meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for genetically advantageous people.

Personally, I would have no reason to support socialism, given my circumstances. However, even less fortunate people, who do have the inherit ability to achieve great success are smart enough, and hungry enough to advance their lives. At any rate, life is not fair, no matter how much central planning goings into governance. Some will succeed, and some will not; that is the natural order of things. But it is bad for humanity to hobble the most talented and gifted for a futile cause, which is how I see it.


I'm a social democrat, Angela thinks that I'm therefore 'brainwashed' (speaking about respect for the political opinions of the members :(

And because it's Eupedia, and not a single playground of the US, I see again in your posting you don't have a single clue about social democracy Euro style, I feel free to say something about that.

That engineering thing is something that even neo-conservaties have! Implanting democracy in Irak for example is a clear example of a kind of US social engeneering.

Social democrats are first of all supporters of the democratic system that makes them different form the radical left or the commies in the earlier days. From Olaf Palme in Sweden to Willy Brandt/Helmut Schmidt in Germany, Francois Mittterand in France, Willem Drees, Joop Den Uijl, Wim Kok in the Netherlands, Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, Attlee, Wilson, Blair , Brown in the UK for example were al member of the social democracy, they shaped together with other democratic party's Europe after ww2. They were not revolutionaries they were democratic in attitude and style.....and that doesn't deserve the coin 'you have to be brainwashed' that is simply a disgrace and we don't deserve that coin.

With regard to meritocracy you see (I quoted Young about this topic above ^^^) that the Labour party and the other social democratic party's in NW Europe (just like the Clintons) were very meritocratic.....that's why Brown (and Clinton) spoke about the deplorables. May be you didn't expect that but the social democrats of the 'third way' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way) were mainly (not all) very meritocratic.

see this very illustrative Gordon Brown, Labour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14

and Clinton:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004638807/clinton-calls-many-trump-backers-deplorables.html

I'm just somewhat critical about that.....meritocracy must not lead to a class divide along iq. Nothing wrong with personal merit and judgments by that, but when it leads to a 'diploma-democracy'......>>>

I think a meritocracy earns populism either in the right or left kind.

Jovialis
15-02-20, 12:56
I'm a social democrat, Angela thinks that I'm therefore 'brainwashed' (speaking about respect for the political opinions of the members :(

And because it's Eupedia, and not a single playground of the US, I see again in your posting you don't have a single clue about social democracy Euro style, I feel free to say something about that.

That engineering thing is something that even neo-conservaties have! Implanting democracy in Irak for example is clear example of a kind of US social engeneering.

Social democrats are first of all supporters of the democratic system that makes them different form the radical left or the commies in the earlier days. From Olaf Palme in Sweden to Willy Brandt/Helmut Schmidt in Germany, Francois Mittterand in France, Willem Drees, Joop Den Uijl, Wim Kok in the Netherlands, Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, Attlee, Wilson, Blair , Brown in the UK for example were al member of the social democracy, they shaped together with other democratic party's Europe after ww2. They were not revolutionaries they were democratic in attitude and style.....and that doesn't deserve the coin 'you have to be brainwashed' that is simply a disgrace and we don't deserve that coin.

With regard to meritocracy you see (I quoted Young about this topic above ^^^) that the Labour party and the other social democratic party's in NW Europe (just like the Clintons) were very meritocratic.....that's why Brown (and Clinton) spoke about the deplorables. May be you didn't expect that but the social democrats of the 'third way' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way) were mainly (not all) very meritocratic.

see this very illustrative Gordon Brown, Labour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEReCN9gO14

and Clinton:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004638807/clinton-calls-many-trump-backers-deplorables.html

I'm just what critical about that.....meritocracy must not lead to a class divide along iq. Nothing wrong with personal merit and judgments by that, but when it leads to a 'diplom-democracy'......>>>

I think a meritocracy earns populism either in the right or left kind.


Let's keep things dispassionate here, so we can focus on the main issue.

Your statement:

"meritocracy must not lead to a class divide along iq."

I think this is the main disconnect here, what you are saying is normative statement. It is a value judgement.

What I am saying:

"meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for genetically advantageous people."

This is a positive statement; It is an acknowledgment of the facts of reality. People who are more capable will thrive in place where they are allowed to. Thus, there will surely be class divide in meritocratic societies, because higher IQs will surpass lower IQs. To suggest that lower IQ people will do as well, or better than higher IQ people would be astonishing to say the least. But completely unbelievable.

Now, if I were to make a normative statement, I think higher IQ people deserve to thrive, over lower IQ people.

I'm not convinced that taxing wealth to facilitate the lives of less capable people is something that I should support, or is good for society. Scarcity of resources is ultimately the source of conflict, and will always create a situation of haves and have-nots.

The "nation building" policies of Neo-Cons are not exactly representative of meritocratic-capitalist societies. They are motivated by other tenants that are irrelevant to the discussion. Just like how the communists dogmatically facilitating a worker revolution via subversion and force, is separate from socialist societies.

Northener
15-02-20, 13:04
Let's keep things dispassionate here, so we can focus on the main issue.

"I'm just what critical about that.....meritocracy must not lead to a class divide along iq."

I think this is the main disconnect here, what you are saying is normative statement. It is a value judgement.

What I am saying:

"meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for genetically advantageous people."

This is a positive statement; It is an acknowledgment of the facts of reality. People who are more capable will thrive in place where they are allowed to. Thus, there will surely be class divide in meritocratic societies, because higher IQs will surpass lower IQs.

Now, if I were to make a normative statement, I think higher IQ people deserve to thrive, over lower IQ people.

I'm not convinced that taxing wealth to facilitate the lives of less capable people is something that I should support, or is good for society. Scarcity of resources is ultimately the source of conflict, and will always create a situation of haves and have-nots.

The "nation building" policies of Neo-Cons are not exactly representative of meritocratic-capitalist societies. They are motivated by other tenants that are irrelevant to the discussion. Just like how the communists dogmatically facilitating a worker revolution via subversion and force, is separate from socialist societies.

May I feel free to see this as normative too and not something what is absolute!?

My idea in this respect:


But on topic I'm convinced that a better quality of life, a good acces to public services (like schools but also hospitals) that are of excellent quality provides the best conditions for raising creativity and making use of the iq we seem to have inherited from our parents!


That's what the philosopher Berlin called positive freedom!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin#"Two_Concepts_of_Liberty"

Northener
15-02-20, 13:16
Let's keep things dispassionate here, so we can focus on the main issue.

Your statement:

"meritocracy must not lead to a class divide along iq."

I think this is the main disconnect here, what you are saying is normative statement. It is a value judgement.

What I am saying:

"meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for genetically advantageous people."

This is a positive statement; It is an acknowledgment of the facts of reality. People who are more capable will thrive in place where they are allowed to. Thus, there will surely be class divide in meritocratic societies, because higher IQs will surpass lower IQs. To suggest that lower IQ people will do as well, or better than higher IQ people would be astonishing to say the least. But completely unbelievable.

Now, if I were to make a normative statement, I think higher IQ people deserve to thrive, over lower IQ people.

I'm not convinced that taxing wealth to facilitate the lives of less capable people is something that I should support, or is good for society. Scarcity of resources is ultimately the source of conflict, and will always create a situation of haves and have-nots.

The "nation building" policies of Neo-Cons are not exactly representative of meritocratic-capitalist societies. They are motivated by other tenants that are irrelevant to the discussion. Just like how the communists dogmatically facilitating a worker revolution via subversion and force, is separate from socialist societies.

Besides that when this is serious your conviction, IMO you must accept even a kind of civil war, the revolt from the Rust Belt area's in the US and Europe: the election of Trump and the Brexit are just preludes....

Farstar
15-02-20, 13:55
Yes you are on Eupedia, but this thread is about academic success being linked to genes. The article states that people with genetic advantages are able utilize meritocratic systems to their advantage. Socialist societies are focused on engineering economic and social equity, via the state. Thus, socialist societies will have to stifle the people with the inherent ability to out perform their peers. Ergo, my statement is correct; that meritocratic-capitalist societies are optimal environments for genetically advantageous people.

Personally, I would have no reason to support socialism, given my circumstances. However, even less fortunate people, who do have the inherent ability to achieve great success are smart enough, and hungry enough to advance their lives. At any rate, life is not fair, no matter how much central planning goes into governance. Some will succeed, and some will not; that is the natural order of things. But it is bad for humanity to hobble the most talented and gifted for a futile cause, which is how I see it.

I am libertarian, so anti-Socialist, but my view is the opposite: simplistic arguments that the winners deserve so are the first path towards autocracy. Some people that success will have merit, others not. Difficult to know. Impossible to know. But if start allowing the government to rank people on a test (which is a natural thing to do if we believe IQ tests measure "real" merit), we are on the wrong path of freedom.

Farstar
15-02-20, 13:56
I am libertarian, so anti-Socialist, but my view is the opposite: simplistic arguments that the winners deserve so are the first path towards autocracy. Some people that success will have merit, others not. Difficult to know. Impossible to know. It could be the people with more merit win. Or it could be the most psycopaths. Or something different. In the end, who wins is who wins, nothing more, nothing less. But if start allowing the government to rank people on a test (which is a natural thing to do if we believe IQ tests measure "real" merit), we are on the wrong path of freedom.

Northener
15-02-20, 15:14
Short:

When iq is mostly inherited and iq is the basis of a meritocracy....than meritocracy is not based on merit, or achievement, but on an inherited talent.

Inherit is a gift, not a merit!

Jovialis
15-02-20, 17:06
Short:

When iq is mostly inherited and iq is the basis of a meritocracy....than meritocracy is not based on merit, or achievement, but on an inherited talent.

Inherit is a gift, not a merit!


No, a society based on merit, is based on merit, obviously!

I think you need to read again. High IQ people have a greater the ability to surpass lower IQs in a society that is based on merit, that is just obvious... Thus, a society that is based on merit will likely have class divisions. Socialist societies ultimately need to suppressing the success of high IQ people, because you think someone with an IQ of 80 should be in the same class of someone with an IQ of 140. So ultimately, that will lead to a society of dullards.

Not everyone is going to make it. Even when you adjust the odds, stupid people will eventually fail. But what is worse is that you will stultify capable people, by diminishing their incentives to rise above; who would otherwise lift-up the society around them. But at least in a meritocratic-capitalist society, there is a more likely chance that those with the capability will rise above. Instead of watering down the requirements, and ultimately leading to a Chernobyl disaster-like situation of people too inept to do the tasks they are assigned.

Jovialis
15-02-20, 17:18
I am libertarian, so anti-Socialist, but my view is the opposite: simplistic arguments that the winners deserve so are the first path towards autocracy. Some people that success will have merit, others not. Difficult to know. Impossible to know. It could be the people with more merit win. Or it could be the most psycopaths. Or something different. In the end, who wins is who wins, nothing more, nothing less. But if start allowing the government to rank people on a test (which is a natural thing to do if we believe IQ tests measure "real" merit), we are on the wrong path of freedom.

That is a straw-man argument, from out of left field. Did anyone say that the government should rank people, and award them based on that? People with Higher IQs will likely earn the merit they deserve. Thus they will rise above the chaff (i.e. lower-IQs), and that will ultimately create class division. Unless of course, government intervention stops that. Which is basically what democrats are doing in our education system here in the US. Its called grade inflation.

Northener
15-02-20, 18:21
No, a society based on merit, is based on merit, obviously!

I think you need to read again. High IQ people have a greater the ability to surpass lower IQs in a society that is based on merit, that is just obvious... Thus, a society that is based on merit will likely have class divisions. Socialist societies ultimately need to suppressing the success of high IQ people, because you think someone with an IQ of 80 should be in the same class of someone with an IQ of 140. So ultimately, that will lead to a society of dullards.

Not everyone is going to make it. Even when you adjust the odds, stupid people will eventually fail. But what is worse is that you will stultify capable people, by diminishing their incentives to rise above; who would otherwise lift-up the society around them. But at least in a meritocratic-capitalist society, there is a more likely chance that those with the capability will rise above. Instead of watering down the requirements, and ultimately leading to a Chernobyl disaster-like situation of people too inept to do the tasks they are assigned.

No because people with high IQ have high cognitive abilities that is not always combined with an achiever attitude (in social affairs).
I know people with a high IQ but with low capacities to 'surpass' (as you name it) people with lower IQ. Mister Spock is not always the chief in the world Jovialis....if you regret it or not in....but no society either capitalist, communist, meritocratic, is high IQ alone enough to be a social achiever!

Northener
15-02-20, 18:37
Breaking thought. I must correct myself I see that some claim that Trump has an IQ of 156 (99,99% of the world scores lower).....indeed in a meritocratic society the people with the highest position have always the highest IQ.....how could I overlook such a prove!

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/30/president-trumps-supporters-promote-bizarre-website-claiming-that-his-iq-is-156-at-the-minimum_partner/

:grin:

Angela
15-02-20, 18:42
I didn't want to return to this topic, but I want to make something crystal clear.

I do believe that a good portion of what people achieve is the result of inherited capabilities of all kinds. So, not genetic determinism, but certainly scales weighted by genetics. That's evolutionary genetics at work. For me, it's a fact.

Do I think it's fair? No, I absolutely don't, but life is never, ever fair. Do I wish it were different? Yes, I absolutely do. Facts are sometimes extremely unpalatable.

I'll point to one example with which I'm deeply familiar: the judicial system. One reason I got out of criminal law is because it became increasingly clear to me that while certain people clearly had to be incarcerated for the good of the community as a whole, their propensity to crime had a great deal to do with factors beyond their control, including low IQ, mental health disorders of one kind or another, and horrific rearing situations. All you have to do to realize that is to look at statistics on prison populations. The number of high intelligence, well adjusted people without mental health issues is a small percentage of that population, and usually to be found in the prisons mostly for white collar criminals. As for the inmates in the "hard core" prisons, which house the vast majority of inmates, it's a completely different story, and, to make the situation even more horrific, for them and for society as a whole, I didn't and don't see any way to "rehabilitate" them. I have little hope that any of them can be rehabilitated.

What, however, is the solution, in terms of economic and political systems? What system will create the greatest good for the greatest number?

To me, it's beyond clear that given human nature, which is again "baked" into our dna, imo, capable people will not perform optimally if there is not a commensurate reward for their efforts. If they get paid X for their hard work, but a lazy or just not as capable person gets paid the same X, they'll slack off. Total production will go down.

Therefore, from my perspective, a capitalist system produces the most goods and services overall. Just look at the most "strict" Marxist/Socialist countries, like the old Soviet Union, the old Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, Venezuela, to mention just a few. They just didn't and don't work economically, and everyone suffers economically.

What, however, to do about the portion of the population which just "isn't" capable, for cognitive, mental health reasons etc. If anyone thinks I'm a social Darwinian who believes, well, let them just sink, you don't know me. I think it's tragic. Of course I don't want anyone to starve or die for lack of medical attention. Out of sheer compassion for our fellow human beings, there has to be a "safety net" to protect them. It can't, however, be so equalizing that the producers stop producing, because then there is nothing, or at least far less, for everyone to share.

What is the solution, however? I can tell you that this country has spent trillions trying to raise our "underclass" out of poverty, and trying to increase their performance cognitively. It just DOESN'T work. That's the reality that the far leftist wing of people in this country just won't or can't accept. It's not a plot to keep these people down. It's not racial discrimination anymore, or lack of opportunity for people growing up poor white in rural Appalachia. It's genetics.

In the Europe of the past, with its more homogeneous populations, providing a higher standard of living for the bottom percentage of the population, in effect gifting it to them, was doable without destroying the economy because there were just fewer of them. From what I can see, with the growth of that "less capable" part of the population in these countries, attitudes are changing. It's natural, and, human nature again. It doesn't take a math genius to realize that these social welfare programs are starting to overstrain the system. You can't spend more money on social services when less money is coming in because the number of producers is going down.

The extraordinary thing to me is that, given the size of our underclass, much larger than that in any European country, we've been able to do as much as we have. However the media may portray things, there is a "safety net" in the U.S., even if the benefits of the social service programs is not as good as in Europe. No one with the intelligence and mental health to apply for social services will starve, or lack housing, or even lack medical care, because, in the latter case, they either go on Medicaid or go to emergency rooms which are not allowed to turn them away. It's the "working poor" who have to be taken care of in terms of medical care.

What really worries me is that given a very near future when machines will take away virtually not only most manual labor, but computers will take away most lower level white collar work, the proportion of the population which isn't "capable" enough to function optimally in society will be ever smaller.

I can't see a long term solution other than genetic engineering, which would in effect be the disproportionately allocated high IQ people figuring out a way to even the playing field genetically for low IQ impaired people.

One other point: I believe Marxism is inherently anti-democratic and fascistic, as well as completely wrong about economics. I know of no strictly socialist country which ever had either a thriving economy or a society which respected human rights. I don't trust people who espouse Marxist ideology, and I don't want them in control of my country. I've heard what they plan from their own mouths as far back as the late 70s. That's when they don't know there are recording devices around, of course. Nor can I stomach the "WOKE" mentality which is part of the package.

https://i.imgur.com/J3Xz7ob.png

Now, I really am out.

Northener
15-02-20, 19:06
I didn't want to return to this topic, but I want to make something crystal clear.

I do believe that a good portion of what people achieve is the result of inherited capabilities of all kinds. So, not genetic determinism, but certainly scales weighted by genetics. That's evolutionary genetics at work. For me, it's a fact.

Do I think it's fair? No, I absolutely don't, but life is never, ever fair. Do I wish it were different? Yes, I absolutely do. Facts are sometimes extremely unpalatable.

I'll point to one example with which I'm deeply familiar: the judicial system. One reason I got out of criminal law is because it became increasingly clear to me that while certain people clearly had to be incarcerated for the good of the community as a whole, their propensity to crime had a great deal to do with factors beyond their control, including low IQ, mental health disorders of one kind or another, and horrific rearing situations. All you have to do to realize that is to look at statistics on prison populations. The number of high intelligence, well adjusted people without mental health issues is a small percentage of that population, and usually to be found in the prisons mostly for white collar criminals. As for the inmates in the "hard core" prisons, which house the vast majority of inmates, it's a completely different story, and, to make the situation even more horrific, for them and for society as a whole, I didn't and don't see any way to "rehabilitate" them. I have little hope that any of them can be rehabilitated.

What, however, is the solution, in terms of economic and political systems? What system will create the greatest good for the greatest number?

To me, it's beyond clear that given human nature, which is again "baked" into our dna, imo, capable people will not perform optimally if there is not a commensurate reward for their efforts. If they get paid X for their hard work, but a lazy or just not as capable person gets paid the same X, they'll slack off. Total production will go down.

Therefore, from my perspective, a capitalist system produces the most goods and services overall. Just look at the most "strict" Marxist/Socialist countries, like the old Soviet Union, the old Eastern Bloc countries, Cuba, Venezuela, to mention just a few. They just didn't and don't work economically, and everyone suffers economically.

What, however, to do about the portion of the population which just "isn't" capable, for cognitive, mental health reasons etc. If anyone thinks I'm a social Darwinian who believes, well, let them just sink, you don't know me. I think it's tragic. Of course I don't want anyone to starve or die for lack of medical attention. Out of sheer compassion for our fellow human beings, there has to be a "safety net" to protect them. It can't, however, be so equalizing that the producers stop producing, because then there is nothing, or at least far less, for everyone to share.

What is the solution, however? I can tell you that this country has spent trillions trying to raise our "underclass" out of poverty, and trying to increase their performance cognitively. It just DOESN'T work. That's the reality that the far leftist wing of people in this country just won't or can't accept. It's not a plot to keep these people down. It's not racial discrimination anymore, or lack of opportunity for people growing up poor white in rural Appalachia. It's genetics.

In the Europe of the past, with its more homogeneous populations, providing a higher standard of living for the bottom percentage of the population, in effect gifting it to them, was doable without destroying the economy because there were just fewer of them. From what I can see, with the growth of that "less capable" part of the population in these countries, attitudes are changing. It's natural, and, human nature again. It doesn't take a math genius to realize that these social welfare programs are starting to overstrain the system. You can't spend more money on social services when less money is coming in because the number of producers is going down.

The extraordinary thing to me is that, given the size of our underclass, much larger than that in any European country, we've been able to do as much as we have. However the media may portray things, there is a "safety net" in the U.S., even if the benefits of the social service programs is not as good as in Europe. No one with the intelligence and mental health to apply for social services will starve, or lack housing, or even lack medical care, because, in the latter case, they either go on Medicaid or go to emergency rooms which are not allowed to turn them away. It's the "working poor" who have to be taken care of in terms of medical care.

What really worries me is that given a very near future when machines will take away virtually not only most manual labor, but computers will take away most lower level white collar work, the proportion of the population which isn't "capable" enough to function optimally in society will be ever smaller.

I can't see a long term solution other than genetic engineering, which would in effect be the disproportionately allocated high IQ people figuring out a way to even the playing field genetically for low IQ impaired people.

One other point: I believe Marxism is inherently anti-democratic and fascistic, as well as completely wrong about economics. I know of no strictly socialist country which ever had either a thriving economy or a society which respected human rights. I don't trust people who espouse Marxist ideology, and I don't want them in control of my country. I've heard what they plan from their own mouths as far back as the late 70s. That's when they don't know there are recording devices around, of course. Nor can I stomach the "WOKE" mentality which is part of the package.

https://i.imgur.com/J3Xz7ob.png

Now, I really am out.

I believe that people are not equal talented or gifted. So people are inherent not equal. For me the outcomes of a social system doesn't have to be equal. But please moderate, with prudence. I prefer a social system in which also low and moderate talented people have a chance to have a decent living. All a matter of social fairness/decency. The middle class needs to be broad as possible.

And that's always a matter of choices. Yes small homegenous countries have it more easy in this respect, but the US has shown in the past (with the New Deal for example) that a broadening of the middle class is possible! IMO it's a matter of ideological harshness to deny that it's possible.

And an example (omg here he comes again with his Dutchies ;) But this is an illustrative example. Do you know who are the biggest agricultural exporteurs in the world:
1. US
2. The Netherlands.

Yes indeed....now take a make map of the world, see the scale of the Netherlands and the scale of the US...... ROFLOL I guess it's not necessarily to say how incredible efficient and intensive the Dutch agricultural sector is.

So an in your eyes "Socialist" economy like the Netherlands is as productive and competative as you can imagine....was the world agricultural sector organized like the Dutch one then there was no food problem in the world (and yes this has it's giga side effects).

So social responsibility and high effective can go together.....

https://humboldt.global/top-agricultural-exporters/

Jovialis
15-02-20, 22:19
I guess anything is possible when you are using someone else's money to pay for it...


Breaking thought. I must correct myself I see that some claim that Trump has an IQ of 156 (99,99% of the world scores lower).....indeed in a meritocratic society the people with the highest position have always the highest IQ.....how could I overlook such a prove!

https://www.salon.com/2019/12/30/president-trumps-supporters-promote-bizarre-website-claiming-that-his-iq-is-156-at-the-minimum_partner/

:grin:

That's a garbage "news" outlet they infamously tried to apologize, and normalize pedophilia.

Salento
31-03-20, 16:18
@salento
We both know that any college Ivy league or not is a business and their primary goal is to make money. If it's more profitable to admit people with 2.5 GPA's or chipmunks they will gladly do so.

The majority of the classes i took in college/University taught me how to waste money and time learning
nothing ill ever need to know to excel in the profession I wanted

I see.

👋 .... . .-.. .-.. ---