Dysgenics

[Uncle Martin]

Without quoting your first reply; Alot of food for thought. I will respond as time allows.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod
This is surprisingly deterministic coming from you, Unc. Sorry but this sounds strange to me. How can education "supersede" intelligence?

It doesn't. Maybe you misinterpreted my meaning or I worded it incorrectly. Intelligence is the dominant factor? YES! Education is less of a factor? YES! "But IF education..." denotes a contrasting supposition. I think you missed the word "if" in my above post.

IF intelligence is innate, is knowledge also innate? Or is knowledge something we unlock with our intelligence?

Knowledge is "education". Intelligence is not what you are able to remember, it is your ability to decide WHAT to remember. How to think. How to apply what you know. Etc... Etc... My PC has infinitely more knowledge than I do, I am infinitely more intelligent than it however. (you would no doubt like to oppose that assertion)

This is turning into a debate of the definition of intelligence, which is not what I had intended. It would be an interesting topic though.

Are you asserting that education can overcome our inherent limits? This seems ludicrous to me.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod
I have no faith in IQ as a real test of anything. I remember having to complete IQ tests when I was drafted by the army fifteen years ago and it was completely ridiculous.

I agree that the IQ scores are blown way out of valid relationship. But I do think it is a valid test for what it is testing for. The question is what is it testing for? And what specific areas does that correlate to? But there are definately language biases, ethnic biases, ... that make it unreliable if such factors are not filtered.

Dysgenics - from what little I have read about it - is a quasi science based on a right-wing, Christian view that intelligence is innate (you either have a high IQ or you don't) and that education is the trigger which lets the IQ flourish.

Yes, I noticed on the site originally referred, that they uncritically accept and strongly base support on the book "The Bell Curve". This book was discreditted long ago as dubious statistics and funding sources with very directed objectives.

We covered a story back in 2001 about dysgenics stirring up political issues in Germany:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=31199">http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=31199
</a>

Tormod

You da man! Way to be on top of things!

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin
don't want to stop anyone from procreating, I am concerned that educated professionals, assumed to be highly intelligent, are having far fewer children than the average blue collar couple. I can't prove that the blue collar folks are less intelligent, it is a reasonable speculation I think. Remember, I'm talking overall population averages here. I am a blue collar guy.

Unc, I don't think that is a reasonable speculation. I think you (or typically, the American society) is confusing the term "intelligent" with "skilled". Differentiating between white collar and blue collar people is invalid in my eyes because if we accept that blue collar people are less intelligent (on average) than the white collar people, then we are saying that profession determines your intelligence. So if I am a stock broker I am likely to be more intelligent than you.

It is easy to prove, too, by making an IQ test which tests for the kinds of things a stock broker needs to know in order to do his job (recognize symbols, trends and such).

I consider myself a "blue collar guy", coming from what used to be a "working class" family. That distinction is wearing thin as there is hardly any working class left in Norway, everyone seems to be "middle class" these days...but since I work as a journalist and communication officer I guess I am more intelligent than, say, a metal worker. No! I don't buy that. I simply chose a different career. Granted, for a lot of people (and this is more obvious in the States) my career choices are out of reach, but that is a financial and social question. I do NOT agree that it is a matter of intelligence. However, it could be a matter of "skill" - being able to learn new things and adapt to your surroundings in a clever way so that a career path opens up. If one does not get any education then that is difficult.

Sorry, getting long-winded here - I just don't find any support for social development being due to - what shall we call it - "individual intelligence" and the amount of progeny one has.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

It doesn't. Maybe you misinterpreted my meaning or I worded it incorrectly. Intelligence is the dominant factor? YES! Education is less of a factor? YES! "But IF education..." denotes a contrasting supposition. I think you missed the word "if" in my above post.

No, I did not miss it. In fact, even asking the question whether education can supersede intelligence implies to me that either we are talking past each other or I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

Knowledge is "education". Intelligence is not what you are able to remember, it is your ability to decide WHAT to remember. How to think. How to apply what you know. Etc... Etc... My PC has infinitely more knowledge than I do, I am infinitely more intelligent than it however. (you would no doubt like to oppose that assertion)

You pc is as dumb as a piece of silicon and wires can possibly be.


Here is a definition of knowledge:
1. The body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind. 2. Interpreted information that can be used.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm

Your computer has no knowledge. remember our discussion about awareness? I think knowledge would require awareness. Hard to prove, but the definitions support my claim.

This is turning into a debate of the definition of intelligence, which is not what I had intended. It would be an interesting topic though.

You know I love semantics. I think that is EXACTLY what is important to discuss when issues like eugenics and dysgenics come up. What is intelligence? What is knowledge? Who defines what level of each is "good enough"? Do we blindly believe statistics that show that our population is becoming more stupid (or, less intelligent) because those with low IQ has more children than those with a high IQ?

We need to ask the basic questions: Who made the statistics, what were they trying to prove, who did they make the statistics for, what are they going to use the stats for? Do we buy into the framework the statistics were gathered in? Do we know that the data is not biased (well, we *know* it is, since all statistics is by definition biased, but how and in what way?).

So I disagree that dysgenics has any scientific value.

Are you asserting that education can overcome our inherent limits? This seems ludicrous to me.

If I stated that then I must have been drunk. No. I do NOT mean that. I think that education is very important. But, as we have discussed at Hypography before, the quality and purpose of any schooling must be questioned before we can say that it is good. FT does not like Irish' home schooling, for example. I disagree with the Christian perspective of Norwegian public schools. Yet I think it is infinitely better that my kids attend that school than no school at all. Not because it makes them "intelligent" but because they learn how to learn, and they learn social skills, and they spend a lot of time with children. all of those things are very important.

In some countries "education" consists of reading the Koran from you are a young boy until you know it by heart - many times. In many of those countries girls do not receive any education at all. THAT is a worrying situation to me!

I *stron

[Freethinker]

Two comments:

1) Race does not exist in BIOLOGY. the very basis for Dysgenics is that there is some specific identifiable biological division with-in the humans that is "Race". Yet this does not bare out. Characteristics often defined as 'racial' are in fact 'cultural'. Joseph L. Graves, Jr., Core Director, Professor, Biological Sciences, Farleigh Dickinson University wrote, "The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America" and "The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium"
"to show that there is no biological basis for separation of human beings into races and that the idea of race is a relatively recent social and political construction."

Link (edited by Tormod for brevity)

2) In regard to concepts such as...

Originally posted by: Tormod
I *strongly* disagree with the notion that we are born with "limits".

I originally held that all people are born with similar levels of intellegence. Perhaps various relative strengths and weaknesses in narrowly defined areas, but overall on par. But this is obviously not the case in other "physical" attributes. Some are better at athletics. Some have bigger breasts :-), some can play music better, why would it not then be obvious that some were born with greater mental abilities? And it seems to be subject specific. Some are better at math, others philosophy, ...

This would establish functional limits for individuals. Just as it would in pole vaulting or swimsuit competition.

It just does not seem to have a "race" component.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

I originally held that all people are born with similar levels of intellegence. Perhaps various relative strengths and weaknesses in narrowly defined areas, but overall on par. But this is obviously not the case in other "physical" attributes. Some are better at athletics. Some have bigger breasts :-), some can play music better, why would it not then be obvious that some were born with greater mental abilities? And it seems to be subject specific. Some are better at math, others philosophy, ...

This would establish functional limits for individuals. Just as it would in pole vaulting or swimsuit competition.

It just does not seem to have a "race" component.

I did not say that we do not have different mental capabilities. Obviously people are different in every way conceiveable, which is a good thing in my eyes.

However, I don't see how being born with a certain "mental capability" would impose a limit. I would ask, limit on what? The ability to play music? Paint a house? Learn mathematics?

And again - is this limit measurable in any way? If not, I fail to see the scientific value of this idea. If IQ tests are the only way to test someone's "limit", then I don't buy it (since I have already stated that I do not accept IQ tests as scientific evidence).

If something can be proved to establish a "functional limit", then we should be able to spot the future world champions in anything from chess to pole vault simply by doing genetic tests.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Tormod
I think you (or typically, the American society) is confusing the term "intelligent" with "skilled".

fully agreed.

Differentiating between white collar and blue collar people is invalid in my eyes because...then we are saying that profession determines your intelligence....since I work as a journalist and communication officer I guess I am more intelligent than, say, a metal worker. No! I don't buy that. I simply chose a different career.

fully agreed, though I will assert that intelligence would indicate the range of skills you could be adept at.
By example a person who has to struggle their entire life to learn the intricasies of metalworking, is not as intelligent as someone who mastered the craft in 4 years, then went on to become a programmer, translator, politician, chemist, botanist, etc...
perhapse that was a biased example as the areas of skill overlap.
ex2;
person1(P1) spends the majority of their life concentrating on one sole area of experteise.
person2?(P2) spends an equil amount of time and becomes equally as skilled in 2 areas of experteise
person3(P3) spends an equil amount of time and is only marginally proficient in 3 skills.

P1 would likely have more resources than P3 at their retiring age(if P3 ever could retire), while P2 likely amassed much more personal wealth much earlyer than both P1 and P3.

Which would be more likely to breed out of need to sustain one's self at an old age?

Thease examples of course assume equil ambition/effort between the 3(as ambiguous an idea as that is).

Granted, for a lot of people (and this is more obvious in the States) my career choices are out of reach, but that is a financial and social question. I do NOT agree that it is a matter of intelligence. However, it could be a matter of "skill" - being able to learn new things and adapt to your surroundings in a clever way so that a career path opens up. If one does not get any education then that is difficult.

Unless I misinterprited you meaning, you've just confused skill and intelligence. Skill refers to something you have learned and remember; skill with metal, skill with wood, skill with linguistics.

Intelligence would be what was used to adapt to 'new' situations and surroundings and open up a carrear path. Skills may make it easyer to adapt to that path, or make you more suited to it, but intelligence is the force at work to design a means to get there.

Sorry, getting long-winded here - I just don't find any support for social development being due to - what shall we call it - "individual intelligence" and the amount of progeny one has.

Well it was and still is good practice to have many children for the sole reason that when you are old and infirm you will have them to take care of you. The more children, the greater your resources in your old age if you yourself are not capable of supporting yourself at that age.

I would assert that one of the reasons 'those with poor intelligence or character produc[e] disproportionately more progeny' is simply, as stated above, a means of survival.


edit; linguistics is a marginal skill in myself

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Unless I misinterprited you meaning, you've just confused skill and intelligence. Skill refers to something you have learned and remember; skill with metal, skill with wood, skill with linguistics.

Yes, you misinterpret. I mean the ability to learn and adapt, ie a "skilled learner" who is able to use his experience to get out of a given social situation to get educated or move on from a current situation. You do perhaps need to be intelligent to do so, depending on the situation, but intelligence in itself is not enough. You also need to know and understand _how_ to get out and _where_ to go. That is something you must have learned - ie, skill.

Intelligence would be what was used to adapt to 'new' situations and surroundings and open up a carrear path. Skills may make it easyer to adapt to that path, or make you more suited to it, but intelligence is the force at work to design a means to get there.

Intelligence is not a force, and it does not work to create any means (I am nitpicking, but that point is important).

I would actually rephrase your statement around a bit. You would need "insight", "longing for something better", or "desperate need to solve this situation" - *these* are all driving forces - to realize that you must get out of a given situation. You would need skill(s) to get out of it. I can agree that your level of intelligence will have an impact on the outcome, but so would luck and timing!

I don't know - I may come across here as having a fundamental problem with the term "intelligence" in the first place. That may inhibit my ability to be reasonable here. I don't mean that as a joke. I am severely opposed to using IQ as an indication of anything. Intelligence is something we all have. IQ is a socially created thing. There is a huge difference.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod
However, I don't see how being born with a certain "mental capability" would impose a limit. I would ask, limit on what? The ability to play music? Paint a house? Learn mathematics?

Yes, I find that the specifics of an individual's intellectual capabilites can establish specifics limits. Just as someone born taller would have one inherent advantage in Basketball, some are born with "Perfect pitch", the ability to recognize exact frequencies. I have never herd of a single person that "developed" the talent just by desire, at a later time. Some people just can not sing on key, Bob Dylan comes to mind. Or can play a guitar better, Neil Young comes to mind.

These two examples show people that have spent their lives in the related area. Dylan does not sing off key as a show gimic, that is just what his born ability allows. Neil has played guitar professionally for decades, yet his playing is very simplistic. Even when he "tries" to get fancy, he shows he just does not have the innate talent to really "jam".

I was an assistant math teacher in college. Some just "got it" and others didn't have a clue. But I would be willing to bet that each had other strengths and weaknesses.

During a parent teacher conference for my 2nd oldest, his Science teacher told me that my son not only had the highest text average of any student he had ever had, but unlike EVERY OTHER high performer he had taught in his decades, my son just UNDERSTOOD things rather than memorizing the correct answers.

My 2 oldest just seem to have an ability to REASON/ understand things. My youngest just seems to have problems making those same connections. He tries, and at times does well, but just does not display that same basic skill.

Each of these things would establsh limits. Neil will just never be a Hendrix on guitar.

And again - is this limit measurable in any way? If not, I fail to see the scientific value of this idea. If IQ tests are the only way to test someone's "limit", then I don't buy it (since I have already stated that I do not accept IQ tests as scientific evidence).

Again, an IQ test is valid in establishing different abilities in things it is testing for. Other tests could/ should be designed to test for OTHER abilities. No test could be perfect or all encompassing. But they can serve a purpose if properly applied.

If something can be proved to establish a "functional limit", then we should be able to spot the future world champions in anything from chess to pole vault simply by doing genetic tests.

Ah, now you are changing the subject. Yes the topic is related to gentically inhereted abilities. This specific discussion was about NATURAL abilities of an INDIVIDUAL. Yes something they were or were not BORN with. But not specifically a genetically inheritted trait.