Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 First of all, sterilizing stupid people wouldn't bottleneck the entire human population into two genotypes. Intelligent people have many different genotypes themselves. We will still have plenty of bio diversity left over after the sterilization process is complete, and through genetic variations we will gain new genetic diversity as time goes on. Many times bottlenecks are good for a species, natural selection bottlenecks organisms all the time, the weak genes die off while the fit genes produce more offspring. This would just be that process done artificially. You didn't just advocate sterilizing stupid people. You also advocated aborting any fetus with a genetic diversity. Lol, that is EXACTLY where you get new genes from... NOWHERE! They randomly mutate and you get new genes! Sometimes its beneficial, sometimes it is harmful. Through natural selection the harmful variations usually die off, but due to human emotion, we try to keep the harmful genetic variations alive because it makes us feel all warm inside. I believe the point is that this takes quite a long time. A human generation is perhaps twenty-five years, and you'd need hundreds or thousands of generations before meaningful diversity develops. I personally believe that intelligent people will ultimately benefit me and my future offspring far more than an intellectually inferior individual. According to statistics someone with low IQ is more likely to commit violent crime, if we allow the overpopulation of stupid people, statistically speaking there is a good possibility that somewhere down the line your offspring will be attacked, mugged, raped etc by the offspring of one of these stupid people. Conversely through the government advocating the production of higher IQ people, statistically one of them will probably invent some new technology that will benefit your offspring in some way directly or indirectly. Look at the bigger picture, in the long run Eugenics will pay off big time. Are there not other ways of benefiting the world, beyond intelligence and invention? For example, the leaders of the civil rights movement may not have been college-educated electrical engineers, but they achieved a great deal of good.
Appolinaria Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 I was referring to intelligent individuals in the western countries. Chinas city populations have high average IQ's but their government does not take IQ tests of their rural less intelligent populations. The true average intelligence of China would be much lower if they did. The vast majority of Chinese citizens are unintelligent living in shacks. The true rural impoverished China and the privileged city populations are very different. Also in Chinese schools they prepare students to take IQ tests beforehand, which throw off the results in their favor. Communist regimes such as China are well known for using propaganda to make their state seem better than it actually is. Also I am seriously tired of people claiming because I spelled one thing wrong I must be stupid. Get over it, I don't have the best grammar in the entire world, so what? Argue against my ideas not my vocabulary... I actually don't think you're stupid at all. Even if you have grammar like that of a child, or even if someone has dyslexia, down syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy, whatever... they still have valid ideas to contribute and deserve to live/lead a happy life with equal opportunity for education if they want it. I think you're very intelligent but have a lot of fear. Don't worry, we all die, humanity surviving eternity isn't what matters. Based on how timid your response was to me calling you "little guy" and how you've reacted to other's posts, I think you're actually quite compassionate and level-headed. You're just terribly confused. Right now, these people are just numbers. If you had to kill them yourself, I'm pretty sure you'd feel differently about eugenics. I know there's some good in your little heart, no matter how you try to come off.
Eugenics Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 You didn't just advocate sterilizing stupid people. You also advocated aborting any fetus with a genetic diversity. I believe the point is that this takes quite a long time. A human generation is perhaps twenty-five years, and you'd need hundreds or thousands of generations before meaningful diversity develops. Are there not other ways of benefiting the world, beyond intelligence and invention? For example, the leaders of the civil rights movement may not have been college-educated electrical engineers, but they achieved a great deal of good. Actually I advocate aborting fetuses with undesirable genetic diversity. Encouraging the production of fetuses with beneficial genetic diversity. Hundreds or thousands of generations is a drop in the bucket compared to our entire evolutionary timeline. The civil rights movement did not benefit the world, it benefited a group of formerly oppressed people by oppressing the descendants of their oppressors. Also the civil rights movement was organized by a group of highly intelligent individuals. I actually don't think you're stupid at all. Even if you have grammar like that of a child, or even if someone has dyslexia, down syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy, whatever... they still have valid ideas to contribute and deserve to live/lead a happy life with equal opportunity for education if they want it. I think you're very intelligent but have a lot of fear. Don't worry, we all die, humanity surviving eternity isn't what matters. Based on how timid your response was to me calling you "little guy" and how you've reacted to other's posts, I think you're actually quite compassionate and level-headed. You're just terribly confused. Right now, these people are just numbers. If you had to kill them yourself, I'm pretty sure you'd feel differently about eugenics. I know there's some good in your little heart, no matter how you try to come off. Again, I do not advocating killing anyone, just sterilizing, it is much more humane than mass murder. I have a question for you, if you had the magic power to snap your fingers and make everyone in the world intelligent, healthy, and happy, would you?
Daedalus Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) The civil rights movement did not benefit the world, it benefited a group of formerly oppressed people by oppressing the descendants of their oppressors. Also the civil rights movement was organized by a group of highly intelligent individuals. The civil rights movement paved the way for many african-americans to become great teachers, scientists, and inventors who have had a tremendous impact on the world: African-American Inventors George Washington Carver (1865?-1943) was an American scientist, educator, humanitarian, and former slave. Carver developed hundreds of products from peanuts, sweet potatoes, pecans, and soybeans; his discoveries greatly improved the agricultural output and the health of Southern farmers. Before this, the only main crop in the South was cotton. The products that Carver invented included a rubber substitute, adhesives, foodstuffs, dyes, pigments, and many other products. Dr. Charles Richard Drew (1904-1950) was an American medical doctor and surgeon who started the idea of a blood bank and a system for the long-term preservation of blood plasma (he found that plasma kept longer than whole blood). His ideas revolutionized the medical profession and have saved many, many lives. Lewis Howard Latimer (1848-1928) was an African-American inventor who was a member of Edison's research team, which was called "Edison's Pioneers." Latimer improved the newly-invented incandescent light bulb by inventing a carbon filament (which he patented in 1881). Garrett Augustus Morgan (March 4, 1877 - August 27, 1963), was an African-American inventor and businessman. He was the first person to patent a traffic signal. He also developed the gas mask (and many other inventions). Morgan used his gas mask (patent No. 1,090,936, 1914) to rescue miners who were trapped underground in a noxious mine. Soon after, Morgan was asked to produce gas masks for the US Army. Just to name a few... Also, I.Q. is not the only factor which determines whether or not a person will be beneficial. A lot can be said towards determination / motivation and endurance: Is Genius Born or Can It Be Learned? Genius is very beneficial for memory retention and figuring things out, but if a person is lazy it is absolutely worthless. So not only would you have to create a world where you weed out undesirable genes, but you might also have to create a Totalitarian society and pose harsh penalties to control your world of geniuses. That is just one extreme. But when you begin to control the most basic of freedoms inherent to the population, it's only a matter of time before you begin to take away other freedoms to force your agenda upon society. As history has shown us, it's only a matter of time before the population will revolt and your regime will fall. And will you make special considerations for beautiful women or looks in general (speaking as a man)? I'm not saying beautiful poeople are dumb, but there are a lot of handsome men and gorgeous women out there who may not make the cut. It is my opinion that intelligence, motivation, and endurance are things that are also learned. The stereo-type of the goergous dumb blonde, isn't neccessarily due to her having a low I.Q. A lot can be said of what society imposes on gender and even though she might be very smart, she chose a path through life which allowed her to be pampered and admired by men because of her beauty. Therefore she didn't have to use her intelligence to be successful and paid very little attention to aquiring knowledge. Edited December 13, 2011 by Daedalus 2
Eugenics Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) The civil rights movement paved the way for many african-americans to become great teachers, scientists, and inventors who have had a tremendous impact on the world: African-American Inventors Just to name a few... All the inventors you named lived before the civil rights movement... The civil rights movement was harmful to African Americans, it gave them Affirmative Action, which instead of selecting an employee for their skill, it forced people to employ African Americans just because of their skin color. They could get jobs and college grants too easily without actually working for them, which means not only were White people treated unfairly in the hiring process, African Americans couldn't excel in the work place because they were just there to fill a government quota. Also, I.Q. is not the only factor which determines whether or not a person will be beneficial. A lot can be said towards determination / motivation and endurance: Is Genius Born or Can It Be Learned? Genius is very beneficial for memory retention and figuring things out, but if a person is lazy it is absolutely worthless. So not only would you have to create a world where you weed out undesirable genes, but you might also have to create a Totalitarian society and pose harsh penalties to control your world of geniuses. That is just one extreme. But when you begin to control the most basic of freedoms inherent to the population, it's only a matter of time before you begin to take away other freedoms to force your agenda upon society. As history has shown us, it's only a matter of time before the population will revolt and your regime will fall. They will not revolt if the government is doing what's best for the people. And will you make special considerations for beautiful women or looks in general (speaking as a man)? I'm not saying beautiful poeople are dumb, but there are a lot of handsome men and gorgeous women out there who may not make the cut. It is my opinion that intelligence, motivation, and endurance are things that are also learned. The stereo-type of the goergous dumb blonde, isn't neccessarily due to her having a low I.Q. A lot can be said of what society imposes on gender and even though she might be very smart, she chose a path through life which allowed her to be pampered and admired by men because of her beauty. Therefore she didn't have to use her intelligence to be successful and paid very little attention to aquiring knowledge. If intelligence can be learned, then why can't chimpanzees learn calculus? Because they are genetically less intelligent than humans. This principle works the same with humans. Most "dumb blondes" I have met dyed their hair blonde... Many natural blondes are highly intelligent. Edited December 13, 2011 by Eugenics 1
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 The civil rights movement did not benefit the world, it benefited a group of formerly oppressed people by oppressing the descendants of their oppressors. That's an interesting viewpoint. The point still stands, though. There are numerous other social and political movements that I could use as examples, and it's not just the leaders of those movements (who might be "intelligent" according to your vague definition) who make a difference. If intelligence can be learned, then why can't chimpanzees learn calculus? Because they are genetically less intelligent than humans. This principle works the same with humans. I eagerly await your citation of scientific research supporting genetic predetermination of natural intelligence to a high degree. ("High degree" meaning with a specificity sufficient to place a "normal" human, who is somewhere in the 85-115 IQ range, above or below the 100-point line which divides the sterile and the fertile.)
Daedalus Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) All the inventors you named lived before the civil rights movement... The civil rights movement was harmful to African Americans, it gave them Affirmative Action, which instead of selecting an employee for their skill, it forced people to employ African Americans just because of their skin color. They could get jobs and college grants too easily without actually working for them, which means not only were White people treated unfairly in the hiring process, African Americans couldn't excel in the work place because they were just there to fill a government quota. The civil rights movement was recognized by the U.S. government in the 1950's. However, civil rights have been around much longer than that. See Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954). The demand for civil rights can be dated as far back as 1688 (probably even further if I took more time to research it). One of the first protests against the enslavement of Africans came from German and Dutch Quakers in Pennsylvania in 1688. One of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world occurred in England in 1772, with British judge Lord Mansfield, whose opinion in Somersett's Case was widely taken to have held that slavery was illegal in England. This judgement also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions (such as the American colonies) could not be enforced in England.[173] In 1777, Vermont became the first portion of what would become the United States to abolish slavery (at the time Vermont was an independent nation). In 1794, under the Jacobins, Revolutionary France abolished slavery.[174] There were celebrations in 2007 to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom through the work of the British Anti-Slavery Society. But if you are only interested in the civil rights movement in the U.S., I'm sure you can find some good references to african-american inventors here: African-American inventors and scientists They will not revolt if the government is doing what's best for the people. Are you sure about that? What you see as "best for the people" does not guarentee you that the people will also feel that way. The comments made by others on this thread demonstrates that point. If intelligence can be learned, then why can't chimpanzees learn calculus? Because they are genetically less intelligent than humans. This principle works the same with humans. You are comparing apples to oranges. While I will agree that there are some disorders that prevent humans from learning, most humans are capable of learning the same tasks as other humans. The main difference is one has to have an interest in a subject to be willing to learn it. You can teach Calculus to anyone and they might retain some of the information that they were taught, but only the people who actually want to learn it will make an attempt to retain as much of the information as possible. Most "dumb blondes" I have met dyed their hair blonde... Many natural blondes are highly intelligent. I never stated that beautiful people were dumb. Actually, I stated the opposite and made a point that not all intelligent people use their intelligence to directly benefit society. I asked if you would give special consideration to georgous women who tested low on their I.Q. scores because I actually enjoy looking at beautiful women and it would be a shame if we lost some of those genes. But why enforce this style of Eugenics on the population. Wouldn't genetic manipulation be better? Most parents want the best for their children and, over time, you might see an increase in genetic manipulation to benefit the parent's offspring if such technologies became widely available. But you will also have to consider upbringing too. Regardless of how intelligent a child is, if the parents lock them in their rooms and prevents them from going to school, you will not see the benefit of having better genes. That is also an extreme of the point I'm trying to make, but clearly you can see how upbringing / learning affects the development of a childs emotional state and overall intelligence. Edited December 13, 2011 by Daedalus
Appolinaria Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Actually I advocate aborting fetuses with undesirable genetic diversity. Encouraging the production of fetuses with beneficial genetic diversity. Hundreds or thousands of generations is a drop in the bucket compared to our entire evolutionary timeline. The civil rights movement did not benefit the world, it benefited a group of formerly oppressed people by oppressing the descendants of their oppressors. Also the civil rights movement was organized by a group of highly intelligent individuals. Again, I do not advocating killing anyone, just sterilizing, it is much more humane than mass murder. I have a question for you, if you had the magic power to snap your fingers and make everyone in the world intelligent, healthy, and happy, would you? It is noble to want to progress humanity, but never by the ways you propose. It is much nobler to educate & help those less fortunate at your own expense. I don't really give a fuck whether we survive forever on a floating rock in space. Chances are, there's more to it, and I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket. 1
Eugenics Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) That's an interesting viewpoint. The point still stands, though. There are numerous other social and political movements that I could use as examples, and it's not just the leaders of those movements (who might be "intelligent" according to your vague definition) who make a difference. I eagerly await your citation of scientific research supporting genetic predetermination of natural intelligence to a high degree. ("High degree" meaning with a specificity sufficient to place a "normal" human, who is somewhere in the 85-115 IQ range, above or below the 100-point line which divides the sterile and the fertile.) It is not politically correct to do research supporting my beliefs, therefore there is none. Nobody is going to get funding to research into something so taboo. Are you sure about that? What you see as "best for the people" does not guarentee you that the people will also feel that way. The comments made by others on this thread demonstrates that point. the dissenters will be re-educated to cure them of their brainwashing. You are comparing apples to oranges. While I will agree that there are some disorders that prevent humans from learning, most humans are capable of learning the same tasks as other humans. The main difference is one has to have an interest in a subject to be willing to learn it. You can teach Calculus to anyone and they might retain some of the information that they were taught, but only the people who actually want to learn it will make an attempt to retain as much of the information as possible. Chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor, chimpanzees evolved to be less intelligent than humans. All humans have a common ancestor, some humans evolved to be less intelligent than other humans. We are not all created equal. I never stated that beautiful people were dumb. Actually, I stated the opposite and made a point that not all intelligent people use their intelligence to directly benefit society. I asked if you would give special consideration to georgous women who tested low on their I.Q. scores because I actually enjoy looking at beautiful women and it would be a shame if we lost some of those genes. Intelligence is sexy to me... I hate girls with no brains. But why enforce this style of Eugenics on the population. Wouldn't genetic manipulation be better? Most parents want the best for their children and, over time, you might see an increase in genetic manipulation to benefit the parent's offspring if such technologies became widely available. But you will also have to consider upbringing too. Regardless of how intelligent a child is, if the parents lock them in their rooms and prevents them from going to school, you will not see the benefit of having better genes. That is also an extreme of the point I'm trying to make, but clearly you can see how upbringing / learning affects the development of a childs emotional state and overall intelligence. We have barely scratched the surface of being able to manipulate genes. Yes once we discover that, it will be better, but as of now all we have is Eugenics. With Eugenics producing more intelligent people, we will discover genetic manipulation much faster. Education and intelligence are two different things, some people don't realize that. It is noble to want to progress humanity, but never by the ways you propose. The end justifies the means. Edited December 13, 2011 by Eugenics
Moontanman Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 While I think eugenics is probably a bad idea if for no other reason than humans aren't wise enough to make such decisions for the most part at least. About 50,000 years ago we were genetically purged some say we could have been reduced to a population of less than a few thousand people, those few survived some natural disaster, a super volcano i think, there also seems to be a rise in art at about the same time and weapons started being more and more complex but the 'explosion was around 50,000 years ago when a super volcano blew up and wiped out much of the humans of the time. Creativity could have been the trait that helped those few survive but it also resulted in a genetic bottleneck we still see today, humans are not as diverse genetically as chimps for instance. Not hard to see those few of our African forefathers, the ones who had better skills of some sort and creativity does seem to jump around that time as well. There is also some evidence of flowering of human creativity in some earlier humans but they didn't widely catch on until that super volcano. Oh oh oh maybe the nuclear war will create a race of supermen with mental powers, no really, this disaster did seem to shape human evolution or at least culture to a significant extent. 1
Appolinaria Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 The end justifies the means. But it doesn't.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 It is not politically correct to do research supporting my beliefs, therefore there is none. Nobody is going to get funding to research into something so taboo. I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit of research into heritability of intelligence. I've seen some of it. You should look into it, instead of assuming you're right without any supporting evidence.
Eugenics Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) While I think eugenics is probably a bad idea if for no other reason than humans aren't wise enough to make such decisions for the most part at least. About 50,000 years ago we were genetically purged some say we could have been reduced to a population of less than a few thousand people, those few survived some natural disaster, a super volcano i think, there also seems to be a rise in art at about the same time and weapons started being more and more complex but the 'explosion was around 50,000 years ago when a super volcano blew up and wiped out much of the humans of the time. Creativity could have been the trait that helped those few survive but it also resulted in a genetic bottleneck we still see today, humans are not as diverse genetically as chimps for instance. Not hard to see those few of our African forefathers, the ones who had better skills of some sort and creativity does seem to jump around that time as well. There is also some evidence of flowering of human creativity in some earlier humans but they didn't widely catch on until that super volcano. Oh oh oh maybe the nuclear war will create a race of supermen with mental powers, no really, this disaster did seem to shape human evolution or at least culture to a significant extent. I am pretty sure the entire population of humans on earth wouldn't all live near a volcano, and even if they did, you can be as creative as you want, lava will still burn you to a crisp. My theory is that the ice age pushed humans to become more creative and intelligent do to the lack of food available. I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit of research into heritability of intelligence. I've seen some of it. You should look into it, instead of assuming you're right without any supporting evidence. Well there's the book "The Bell Curve" for one. However the heritability of intelligence is blatantly obvious to me, I need not waste time researching it, it's like researching whether or not blue eyes are genetic... Here is some evidence for you though, Hermann J. Muller created a sperm bank that lasted from 1980 to 1999. He only accepted the sperm from geniuses and Nobel Prize laureates. He would give the sperm to intelligent mothers who wanted to have a baby. All of the offspring produced from his sperm bank have high IQs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Edited December 13, 2011 by Eugenics 1
Ophiolite Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 the dissenters will be re-educated to cure them of their brainwashing. Thank you for your honesty. Your dictatorial, totalitarian vision would be the end of the human race. Sieg heil! 1
StringJunky Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Thank you for your honesty. Your dictatorial, totalitarian vision would be the end of the human race. Sieg heil! Yes!...wow!...let's all say "hello" to the reincarnation of Hitler. "Mein Fuhrer!". Now, where did I put my copy of "Mein Kampf"?
Arete Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) The posted figure was potentially to illustrate a point and not a literal depiction of a population bottleneck from 7 billion to 3.5 billion If you want to substantiate your claim with a simulation, download mesquite, model a panmictic population of 7 billion individuals. Bottleneck it to 3.5b and run the simulation until you get the same number of private alleles as before the bottleneck. http://mesquiteproje...e/mesquite.html This might take a while, but as a hint, a less extreme bottleneck in a population with Ne of 5, 000 results in a lower 95% confidence bound that suggests it would take longer than humans have existed for and an upper confidence interval suggesting it might take longer than placental mammals have been around for. Re: Asperger's. You still haven't explained why Hardy-Weinberg Doesn't apply to your proposal. Asperger's is recessive and seen in 0.003 (1 in 300) of the population http://www.specialed...er/asper11.html Using basic HWE, if p2 = 0.003, 2pq= 0.104 For every person suffering Asperger's, 35 people carry the genes causing the disease with no expression: by disallowing people with Asperger's from breeding with the general populous, you'll have a negligible effect on its expression. Repeating myself here - eugenics to eliminate genetic disorders violates basic genetic and evolutionary principles which I'm pretty sure are learned in high school and certainly are in the first week or two of Genetics 101. However the heritability of intelligence is blatantly obvious to me, I need not waste time researching it You can post repeatedly in this thread but you can't spend 15 minutes on Google Scholar to confirm or reject the fundamental assumption of your entire proposal? It's statements like the above that indicate eugenics is intelligent design for racists. Edited December 13, 2011 by Arete 1
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Well there's the book "The Bell Curve" for one. However the heritability of intelligence is blatantly obvious to me, I need not waste time researching it, it's like researching whether or not blue eyes are genetic... Riiiiight. Color me convinced. It was blatantly obvious to many people that miasmas and bad airs were responsible for disease a few centuries ago. Here is some evidence for you though, Hermann J. Muller created a sperm bank that lasted from 1980 to 1999. He only accepted the sperm from geniuses and Nobel Prize laureates. He would give the sperm to intelligent mothers who wanted to have a baby. All of the offspring produced from his sperm bank have high IQs. Har. It was founded by Robert Graham, not Hermann J. Muller. Muller was dead by 1980. Mothers were required to be educated and intelligent. Hence, if intelligence is determined by experiences and education in the early years of life, these mothers would already have intelligent children, regardless of sperm choice. How do you decide what was responsible, the mother's actions or the donor sperm? There's been no successful survey of all the offspring produced from his sperm bank, so you can't even reach the conclusion they have high IQs. ("Except for two families that have discussed their (wonderful) kids publicly, the repository is a blank. No one seems to know what has happened to its children, its parents, its donors.") A good article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/seed/2001/02/the_genius_babies_and_how_they_grew.html
swansont Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Here is some evidence for you though, Hermann J. Muller created a sperm bank that lasted from 1980 to 1999. He only accepted the sperm from geniuses and Nobel Prize laureates. He would give the sperm to intelligent mothers who wanted to have a baby. All of the offspring produced from his sperm bank have high IQs. ! Moderator Note You've already been warned about backing up claims with evidence. This is not what we really consider evidence: there's no link to any actual information about the claim. And, as we can see, it is not actually true. Do better.
Eugenics Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Thank you for your honesty. Your dictatorial, totalitarian vision would be the end of the human race. Sieg heil! Yes!...wow!...let's all say "hello" to the reincarnation of Hitler. "Mein Fuhrer!". Now, where did I put my copy of "Mein Kampf"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law You can post repeatedly in this thread but you can't spend 15 minutes on Google Scholar to confirm or reject the fundamental assumption of your entire proposal? It's statements like the above that indicate eugenics is intelligent design for racists. I didn't even know Google Scholar existed, cool. If you insist, I will go research the subject lol. @Cap'n Refsmmat and swansont Read this article, http://www.slate.com...es_grow_up.html they took 15 of the children produced from the sperm bank and this is what they found. http://en.wikipedia....nius_Sperm_Bank A later segment of the same Slate article reported on the highlights of the lives of fifteen of the resultant children. Of the fifteen, six reportedly had 4.0 GPAs and two were reported to be "artistically precocious". Still others were reported to be "geniuses" and "whizzes" at various disciplines. All the children contacted by Slate were in good health, except one, who had what his mother described as a "developmental disability". Edited December 13, 2011 by Eugenics
Daedalus Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Is Jon what Graham dreamed of when he built his genius sperm bank? Jon doesn't adore school, but he's still going to graduate a year early. He's "pretty good at math" but not at science. ... "Before I thought I didn't have the potential. Now I think I have got the potential and that I'm just lazy," he says, half-joking. So if Jon never learned of his heritage, then he might have continued to be lazy.... A final, obvious caveat: This is not a representative sample. These families volunteered to speak. I have no idea how the Slate 15 compare to the entire repository group. I also have no way to test these kids for mental acuity or IQ or anything else. What I gathered is anecdote, not data. ... I have no test scores or personality exams or report cards. Nature and nurture are all tangled up. Statistical judgment is impossible. ... Readers have asked me whether it's nature or nurture that has made the repository kids what they are. The question cannot be answered, even if I could conduct elaborate psychometric surveys on the Slate 15. The repository kids all have hyperinvolved parents. Their moms are constantly enrolling them for music lessons and sports teams. The parents don't seem to be bullies— several explicitly don't push their kids intellectually —but they are incredibly attentive and supportive. ... You can't conduct a controlled scientific study about nature and nurture with a self-selecting group of high-achieving families. Did the superstar sperm give the Slate 15 (or the Graham 219) an intelligence boost? Perhaps, but I don't know, and no one else does either. Try again... There isn't any data. Just parents bragging about their "smart" kids. Perhaps they are natural geniuses, or perhaps their parents ecouraged them to study hard - nature vs. nurture. Maybe all sperm banks should tell potential mothers that the sperm they receive is from a genius. Maybe she will encourage her children to study hard and live up to their expectations. Edited December 13, 2011 by Daedalus
John Cuthber Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 "the dissenters will be re-educated to cure them of their brainwashing." or vice versa, depending on your point of view.
Eugenics Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 Ok I am going to put the nail in the coffin on the heritability of intelligence debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[7] Which means 85% of intelligence is inherited, 15% is other factors. I challenge any of you to show evidence that intelligence is not genetic.
Appolinaria Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Yes!...wow!...let's all say "hello" to the reincarnation of Hitler. "Mein Fuhrer!". Now, where did I put my copy of "Mein Kampf"? Please, not again. Also because I have a weak spot for Jewish boys
Daedalus Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Please, not again. Also because I have a weak spot for Jewish boys Awe... I have a genetic disadvantage because I'm Irish / French... Edited December 13, 2011 by Daedalus
Arete Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Ok I am going to put the nail in the coffin on the heritability of intelligence debate. Which means 85% of intelligence is inherited, 15% is other factors. I challenge any of you to show evidence that intelligence is not genetic. With Wikipedia? Really? "The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero" http://pss.sagepub.c.../14/6/623.short "IQ, is perhaps 48%; narrow-sense heritability, the relevant quantity for evolutionary arguments because it measures the additive effects of genes, is about 34%." http://www.nature.co...l/388468a0.html "large environmentally induced IQ gains between generations suggest an important role for environment in shaping IQ" http://psycnet.apa.o.../rev/108/2/346/ etc. Edited December 13, 2011 by Arete
Recommended Posts