Oxford Experts say parents should be allowed to have their Newborn Babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant”

[sumskilz]

High IQ people have a lower death rate at all ages and are less likely to be religious.

You know all that really matters is net reproductive success.

Also, it might be true that high IQ people are selected against today, or it might not, the studies are based on bad assumptions. But in the past that was not the case, and in the future it will not be the case either. In the future we will integrate lots of technology with our body, and dysgenics will be irrelevant. Evolution will still occur but not relating to intelligence, diseases, strength etc. We can already control robots with our thoughts.

We had a big debate on this here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14216552

IQ is highly heritable, the question is really how much.

There are studies assuming national average IQs are mostly due to genetics when that is not the case. It's too much to be a coincidence that the countries with all of the poverty and malnutrition have lower average IQs.

Or countries where the average IQ is much lower have a lot more poverty and malnutrition, though malnutrition and other factors have to play a role. People have attacked Richard Lynn's data on this because his meta-analysis had some populations in the low 80s, but he had boosted their actual scores by about 20 points to account for malnutrition. Anyway, there are a lot of problems with his work but I don't think his alleged racism is the biggest, but that the issue gets a lot harder to answer to anyone's satisfaction cross-culturally.

There are studies claiming the Flynn effect has reversed in the most developed countries, despite the fact these countries are particularly friendly to immigrants from the developing world who grew up with all of that poverty and malnutrition I just mentioned. Estimates of the negative impact of immigrants on the IQ of developed countries are also flawed because they don't take into account the superior environment of developed countries or that immigrants undergo a demographic transition sometimes in the first generation and usually in the second, which significantly reduces their fertlity.

In general, research about IQ and natural selection is full of cranks and woo-peddlers who base their work on bad assumptions and don't understand the complexity of the systems they are talking about. IQ in general is quite a useless measurement, there are people who simply don't think rationally, value evidence or understand logic who have very high IQs.

I think saying it's useless is woo, but anyway sounds like you may be talking about Richard Lynn. Whether his work is valid or not, you know it's been promoted by plenty of morons and extremists on the net, which sort of obscures the issue.

Nobel Prize in Physics laureate Richard Feynman boasted about his surprisingly low 125 IQ (Ok, that's almost 2 standard deviations above average, but 1 in 20-25 people have an IQ that high).

Yeah, I know he said that, but I don't believe it, not if it was on a descent test. This is from a popular magazine, but I think it assesses the claim well enough:

Feynman was universally regarded as one of the fastest thinking and most creative theorists in his generation. Yet it has been reported-including by Feynman himself-that he only obtained a score of 125 on a school IQ test. I suspect that this test emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton. It seems quite possible to me that Feynman's cognitive abilities might have been a bit lopsided-his vocabulary and verbal ability were well above average, but perhaps not as great as his mathematical abilities. I recall looking at excerpts from a notebook Feynman kept while an undergraduate. While the notes covered very advanced topics for an undergraduate-including general relativity and the Dirac equation-it also contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...inding-another

[Phier]

-it also contained a number of misspellings and grammatical errors. I doubt Feynman cared very much about such things.

Amen

Spelling is for bureaucratic minds to quibble over.

[Cyclops]

Amen

Spelling is for bureaucratic minds to quibble over.

Unless you were working at Bletchley Park.

[Gaidin]

Unless you were working at Bletchley Park.

Are you worried about spelling at a museum?

[Enros]

Yeah, I know he said that, but I don't believe it, not if it was on a descent test. This is from a popular magazine, but I think it assesses the claim well enough:

If you only count the bits the test taker is good at, we'd all be the smartest person in the world.

The fact is a boy who scored 125 went on to win the Nobel prize in Physics, a tremendous achievement. 125 is the maximum IQ you can have for some American police forces I've heard about. A girl was similarly tested scored at least 131 (that's the MENSA cut off right?) and went on to be known for her opinion of people's faces.

That doesn't seem like a very predictive test. If you look at the mega-high IQs, you don't see the world's greatest scientists. You see people who create crossword and soduko puzzles or do maths on gameshows. American women Marilyn vos Savant is often named as one candidate for highest recorded IQ, and she makes a living creating and writing about quizzes. You also seem to ignore the fact that IQ maximum potential may be completely genetically determined, but how much of that you actually develop is very much acquired. Remember student IQ varies a lot during the year, and it varies for people from some backgrounds more than others. It also varies a lot over your lifetime, again more for some people than others. That's why determining the genetics of intelligence is so hard (source).

Richard Feynman wasn't born good at maths, and in his book he claims simply remember sums he did before made him very good at mental arithmetic. If you enjoyed doing maths and reading maths instead of debating here or whatever else you do with your time, you'd be very good at it too. Remember, Steven Hawking was a B student in his undergraduate degree. He had to sweet talk his way into being awarded an A average in order to do his PhD, and if they hadn't listened to him he wouldn't be who he is today. Contrast this with physicist Michio Kaku, who built a particle accelerator as a teenager, was taken under the wing of Edward Teller and graduated first in his class from Harvard. He's rapidly losing credibility as a crank. I think this supports the claim that you can make only limited predictions about how successful someone will be based on their IQ or exam results.

There are a lot of fields full of woo. Economics for example can be very scientific, but when people start talking about "schools of economics", you know they are choosing the facts they like. Studying intelligence is can also be very scientific but has an even higher woo count.

[fkizz]

It is definitely favoring the highly religious:

Religion, fertility and genes: a dual inheritance model

There isn't a single religiosity gene, but for the sake of what the model is trying to understand, the simplification works fine.

Heh. Eugenics is already happening then. Birthcontrol methods are weeding out the promiscuous from gene pool. Or at least evolutionary pressure does not appear to favour them.

And the ones who advocate the most birth control are the ones who are less likely to spread their genes. On a selfish gene perspective, they are doing a slow harakiri and fading out of the big picture.

That mysterious double helix works in mysterious ways indeed. Strange world we live in.

[Enros]

We don't know that. Having more children isn't necessarily an evolutionary stable strategy. Often an individual not having children can increase the the chance of other people with the individual's genes having children. This is why women have menopause and also might be why gay people exist. Most dramatically it is why there are species where most individuals do not reproduce, and why multicellular organisms can ultimately exist.

A major reason why more educated and wealthy women have less children is because we've built a world where having children is fundamentally incompatible with getting educated or becoming wealthy. There evidence that women who have children drop out of university at phenomenal rates, and those who have children in school never get there. People who don't go to college just happen to be more likely to be religious. If we really cared we'd have free childcare in university and heavily subsidized childcare in the rest of life. We'd also have mandatory paternity leave of the same length as maternity leave. Right now employers are encouraged to discriminate against women who have children.

Although more educated people have less children, this graph shows that phenomenon is changing:

[Himster]

Heh. Eugenics is already happening then. Birthcontrol methods are weeding out the promiscuous from gene pool. Or at least evolutionary pressure does not appear to favour them.

It's eugenics alrigt. Those who take advantage of birth control have superior control over their reproduction, they can select when they reproduce and also the quantity, thus increasing the quality. Smaller, better planned families have a statistical advantage in terms of income, IQ, education, career success and standard of living and also life expectancy. Children from such families are more likely to have fewer children themselves. A new aristocracy in a very real sense, but one we can all join if we're careful enough.

And the ones who advocate the most birth control are the ones who are less likely to spread their genes.

...and they're more likely to succeed.

On a selfish gene perspective, they are doing a slow harakiri and fading out of the big picture.

Population stabilization is not harakiri, it is the opposite.
Over population is a far greater problem and has far larger and longer lasting negative effects. Even the worst case scenario of depopulation can be solved within one generation, overpopulation takes many many many generations: if ever when one takes into consideration the lowering of education, health, IQ etc. that comes with excessive breeding.

[Enros]

It's eugenics alrigt. Those who take advantage of birth control have superior control over their reproduction, they can select when they reproduce and also the quantity, thus increasing the quality. Smaller, better planned families have a statistical advantage in terms of income, IQ, education, career success and standard of living and also life expectancy. Children from such families are more likely to have fewer children themselves. A new aristocracy in a very real sense, but one we can all join if we're careful enough.

In other words, business as usual:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Himster]

In other words, business as usual:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yup, but due to periods of dynamic shifting it's not as bad as that. Even the poorest European can live like a medieval middle-class person and then some.

[Roma_Victrix]

Yup, but due to periods of dynamic shifting it's not as bad as that. Even the poorest European can live like a medieval middle-class person and then some.

For about $10 at a modern restaurant you can eat roughly as good and sometimes better than a host of medieval rulers in bygone times. For starters, we no longer have to pay an arm and a leg for black pepper seasoning from India. That's the sort of thing that was considered so luxurious in medieval Europe it was basically used as a standard for rating any other luxury item, on par with gold.

[classical_hero]

With statements like this, why did we ever bother fighting WW2, because these are the exact same statements made by the Nazi's regarding Jews and other groups. I mean the Nazi's were doing what they considered was their moral duty which is exactly what these people are basically saying.

[Gaidin]

With statements like this, why did we ever bother fighting WW2, because these are the exact same statements made by the Nazi's regarding Jews and other groups. I mean the Nazi's were doing what they considered was their moral duty which is exactly what these people are basically saying.

That makes no sense.

[fkizz]

It's eugenics alrigt. Those who take advantage of birth control have superior control over their reproduction, they can select when they reproduce and also the quantity, thus increasing the quality. Smaller, better planned families have a statistical advantage in terms of income, IQ, education, career success and standard of living and also life expectancy. Children from such families are more likely to have fewer children themselves. A new aristocracy in a very real sense, but one we can all join if we're careful enough.
...and they're more likely to succeed.

That's some very sugarized unbiased Futorology, Mr. Enlightned Aristocrat. I hope one day I can join your club of Elite Intellectuals.

Population stabilization is not harakiri, it is the opposite.

Seculars are slowly but surely fading from genepool. Was not refering to world issue. If they want to be the first ones in line doing it for easing overpopulation issue, please go ahead. No one complains.

In other words, business as usual:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By Hobbesian thought, Monarchs were justified based on Divine right.

[Theo]

Seculars are slowly but surely fading from genepool. Was not refering to world issue. If they want to be the first ones in line doing it for easing overpopulation issue, please go ahead. No one complains.

"Secularists". People who support a separation between religious institutions and secular state institutions are called "secularists", not "seculars", which isn't a word.

But on to the more bizarre claim in your post... are you seriously claiming that a person's religious affiliation is linked to their genes? Because that would be a serious abuse and misunderstanding of Dean Hamer's work, which is where I assume you are getting this ridiculous idea from. You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that the % of the population who don't support religiously sectarian government ("secularists", who can be Christian, Muslim, non-theist, etc etc) is in decline either.

[fkizz]

are you seriously claiming that a person's religious affiliation is linked to their genes?

Re-read page 5 of this thread, I'm not spoonfeeding you.

Dean Hamer's work, which is where I assume you are getting this ridiculous idea from.

Didn't hear about him before, but thanks I'll give him a look when more free time.

[Theo]

Re-read page 5 of this thread, I'm not spoonfeeding you.

I think you mean page 4, but yet I certainly skipped a lot of this discussion. Having gone back and re-read it I can't say I missed much.

The studies referred to in the paper show a strong link between spirituality and genetics, but do not go so far as to suggest specific religious opinions and affiliations of individuals are the result one's genes. Sure some vague associations with "authoritarian" but nothing concrete. In his papern Rowthorn models the potential impact of religion and fertility on the population based on numerous as of yet unproven assumptions. It is a highly speculative (but still excellent) paper. Not some smoking gun for proving "Seculars are slowly but surely fading from the gene pool". At the end of the paper he even questions on how these religiosity genes would manifest if the majority of the population carrying them became secular.

[Himster]

That's some very sugarized unbiased Futorology, Mr. Enlightned Aristocrat. I hope one day I can join your club of Elite Intellectuals.

You already have joined the club. You are from Europe. You don't have to see or smell the dirty peasants in China and Africa and the Middle east, congratulations.
There is the possibility, as education improves, that the whole world

Seculars are slowly but surely fading from genepool. Was not refering to world issue.

The gene pool is a world issue.
Also secularism spreads, not only paternally, but also by education. As education increases in quality; so does secularism.
And secularism is increasing, education is improving, standards of living are improving, crime rates are decreasing, women's liberation is continuing, life expectancy is extending and so on and so on and so on. We are winning, you are whining.

"Secularists". People who support a separation between religious institutions and secular state institutions are called "secularists", not "seculars", which isn't a word.

He's using the colloquial political American meaning.

[fkizz]

You already have joined the club. You are from Europe. You don't have to see or smell the dirty peasants in China and Africa and the Middle east, congratulations.
There is the possibility, as education improves, that the whole world

Not really. I really feel like quoting Duke of Wellington here. See the amount of "Educated Financial People" who lead us to 2007 world financial crisis.

Also I put myself as Portuguese before European. Portuguese 1st, European 2nd. Given our history of trying to not meddle in European affairs, we're not that much of European, asides from some cultural and geographical influences. But there was a huge effort to look and interact with other parts of the world, and leave Europe behind.

Speaking of Europe, just take a look at how "efficiently" EU handled Ukraine demonstrations... we have a year long civil war in European continent now.

The gene pool is a world issue.
Also secularism spreads, not only paternally, but also by education. As education increases in quality; so does secularism.

You confuse biology and genes with culture. You confuse Nature with Nurture. Then you cannot understand what I'm saying.

And secularism is increasing, education is improving, standards of living are improving, crime rates are decreasing, women's liberation is continuing, life expectancy is extending and so on and so on and so on. We are winning, you are whining.

We've been on Eurocrisis for 6 years now, people are highly pessimistic, no Economic Growth, Europe and EU follows suicidal path, I don't think I need to mention what's going on in Portugal regarding standards of living or domestic violence (many times female victims, some getting close to deadly cases. and others, even males aswell, but more linked to suicide).

No, it's not improving. Your scenario is very beautiful and flowers, but does not match the Cold Iron Reality.

[Himster]

You confuse biology and genes with culture. You confuse Nature with Nurture. Then you cannot understand what I'm saying.

When the effects of two phenomena are identical, the distinction becomes meaningless.

No, it's not improving. Your scenario is very beautiful and flowers, but does not match the Cold Iron Reality.

Cold "iron" reality is not determined by localized, or exceptional anecdotes. Statistical averages and medians are the most accurate way of determining reality.