Dysgenics

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

I would be willing to bet that another teacher would have the same experience, but with a different grouping among the students. Teaching is after all an interaction between the teacher and the students (NOT to imply that you're a bad teacher!!!).

Neil will just never be a Hendrix on guitar.

See, this is the kind of quote that kills me. Why is that a qualification of any kind? Do you seriously believe that Hendrix was born a guitar player? Of course not! He practised his ass off. He established a skill! Come on, this has *nothing* to do with the concept of intelligence.

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.

No, I am not changing the subject. Unc was saying he believe that we are born with limits. You started writing about specific skills like pole vaulting. I question that these things are something we are born with. You mention height - but not every tall person becomes a basketball player. I wouldn't argue that intelligence is what it takes to turn someone into a great basketball player. There are exampes of famous basketball players who were significanty shorter than 6 feet! Obviously height is a good thing if you want to become a basketball player, but it is not the only requirement.

You cannot be born with anything that is not genetically based - except the influence your time in the womb has on you (for example, drug abuse by the mother) or events during the birth (like our new friend kate wrote in a recent post). Unless one would argue that traits can be "given" to a child in any other way, which would imply a god, which I assume the two of us agree is not a part of the equation.

The environment you grow up in will have a tremendous impact on what kind of person you turn out to be, what skills you attain, etc. Like people with musical parents, who happen to grow up on tour or in a recording studio, an eventually become famous musicians - is this intelligence? I'd put it down to a mix of inherited musicality and pure chance.

[Uncle Martin]

You have all posted alot here today. Some very good points that deserve my full attention. It would not do your well thought out posts justice for me to try and reply without considering your thoughts carefully, so it will likely be this weekend before I get to say all I'd like.

Something that I wuold like to bring up now, Tormod, what is a reasonable measurement of intelligence? There are different levels of it, as I think you've said. How do we rate someones ability in a satisfactory way? Also, please disregard white and blue collar from my posts, that was a poor metaphor for sure. Economics and race play no role here, I apologize for my lack of eloquence. Doesn't the word potential imply limits? I'm rambling, as I said, this weekend. Thanks for your patience.

[Tormod]

I don't think you need to apologize for anything, Unc. Your examples were okay for the sake of argument.

I'll have to think about the reasonable measurement of intelligence thing - I have no simple answer.

[Uncle Martin]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Tormod

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.

OK, misunderstanding no. 1, I think. It was not intended as a question. I assumed that your position was that education was a greater factor than genetically inherent intelligence. It was a statement intended to refute that position.

[Tormod]

Okay, then we have that issue cleared up.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod
I frankly don't buy the argument that there is a trend in evolution which is dumbing down a generation of human beings. There are more people on this planet now than ever before. So the average level of skills and cleverness is bound to go down.

This statement bothers me. Why is the average level bound to go down? Why not remain static or rise? This actually seems to support my original proposal, that dysgenics is increasing the proportion of less intelligent humans. I really don't understand why it is "bound" to go down if not for dysgenics.

You then say; "I'd say the best way to counter it would be to reduce the differences between the developing countries and industrialized world", which implies economic or social factors that you deny in other posts. You can't have it both ways, which is it?

Well,....it is your website, so maybe you can have it both ways.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

This statement bothers me. Why is the average level bound to go down? Why not remain static or rise? This actually seems to support my original proposal, that dysgenics is increasing the proportion of less intelligent humans. I really don't understand why it is "bound" to go down if not for dysgenics.

Remember I am saying "no trend in *evolution*". Well, I could be more clear: there are more people than ever, and there are more people living in poverty than ever.

Since *the idea of dysgenics* (thus, not MY idea) is based upon the "problem" of stupid people having offspring (simplifying for the sake of argument), then the logical conclusion would be that the more people there are on this planet, and the fewer of those who can get an education or be born from "intelligent" parents (let's get back to that particular issue after my vacation) then the average level of skills and cleverness will go down. That *is* what they argue, and I actually agree with their conclusion.

I just don't agree - and this is the point I am trying to make - that this is a "dumbing down", because I don't relate intelligence and smartness with people's social situation. So in fact the world could be smarter than ever before - in which case the entire theory of dysgenics fails!

You then say; "I'd say the best way to counter it would be to reduce the differences between the developing countries and industrialized world", which implies economic or social factors that you deny in other posts. You can't have it both ways, which is it?

Well,....it is your website, so maybe you can have it both ways.

No, I don't expect to get it both ways.

I have never denied that social and economic factors play a role! I very much think they do. But as opposed to what the dysgenics theory claims, I think the real issue here is not whether people are being stupid or smart, but whether most people in this world actually are given a fair chance at developing their skills through learning. Like I wrote before, lots of kids never get any kind of serious schooling - often due to living in a poor country. Most of the people in this world live in poverty.

I may be moving away from the issue (my upcoming vacation is slowly putting my brain on hold) but I think there are some issues here that are surfacing and which are much more interesting than just the "dysgenics angle".

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod
I may be moving away from the issue (my upcoming vacation is slowly putting my brain on hold) but I think there are some issues here that are surfacing and which are much more interesting than just the "dysgenics angle".

I couldn't agree more!!! I was only going to make you wait till the weekend, you're making me wait 'till next month. That's hitting below the belt buddy.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

I would be willing to bet that another teacher would have the same experience, but with a different grouping among the students. Teaching is after all an interaction between the teacher and the students (NOT to imply that you're a bad teacher!!!).

Actually, most of my effort was in the hardest to teach students. Those that coyuld not keep up with the class. So actually I was being more succesful than the regular teachers. I would provide one on one tutoring.

Originally posted by: Tormod

See, this is the kind of quote that kills me. Why is that a qualification of any kind? Do you seriously believe that Hendrix was born a guitar player? Of course not! He practised his ass off. He established a skill! Come on, this has *nothing* to do with the concept of intelligence.

No, wrong. Mozart showed musical gifts at a very early age, composing when he was five and when he was six playing before the Bavarian elector and the Austrian empress. And you are trying to say that any kid could do this if they just wanted to! Anyone can be a Leonardo da Vinci if they'd just get off the couch?

What about idiot savants? A guy can do math in his head faster than anyone can put it into a calculator, but can't read a book or tie his shoes. Your saying he could sculpt David if he just wanted to!

Yes learning a SKILL makes you better at something. But there are just some things some people are inherently superior at.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod
I have never denied that social and economic factors play a role! I very much think they do. But as opposed to what the dysgenics theory claims, I think the real issue here is not whether people are being stupid or smart, but whether most people in this world actually are given a fair chance at developing their skills through learning. Like I wrote before, lots of kids never get any kind of serious schooling - often due to living in a poor country. Most of the people in this world live in poverty.

Alright, I think I understand your position on this now. I do agree that had you and I been born in some third world village, with no hope of an education, we would both be very different individuals than we are.

I think what this argument boils down to is which is dominant,...nature or nurture? They both have an obvious influence,....agreed?

I'm beginning to see your point of view. There are ferrel children that do behave as wild animals, but is this due to a lack of education or intelligence? There are so few examples it is difficult to ascertain. The whole of society provides a good data set, if we can come to an agreement as to how we determine intellectual ability.

I still maintain that genetics is the greater factor in intellectual ability and limits. I believe that the factors you present limit ones chances of reaching the potential they inherit. I don't think they decide what that potential will be. I will study the subject as much as time permits, and we will continue this when you return.