Genes are key to academic success

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mha
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.
 
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.
 
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' 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/po...ton-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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mha
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' 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/po...ton-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.
 
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"
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.

J3Xz7ob.png


Now, I really am out.
 

This thread has been viewed 47971 times.

Back
Top