Dysgenics

[Uncle Martin]

Here is an interesting topic I've not seen discussed in these forums. The notion crossed my mind while observing my neighbors years ago, before I had heard of it or even knew it was a named scientific discipline.

For those unaware of the definition; "Dysgenics refers to the problem of those with poor intelligence or character producing disproportionately more progeny. The result is a steady genetic deterioration in human populations."

Some studies indicate that intelligence is mostly genetic. Others assert environmental causes. I'm in the genetic camp. This topic has potential, so let's see your views.

My personal experience tells me dysgenics is a very real danger and is long overdue for remedial measures. Look at some of the posts on this website for evidence.

This link is quite informative; http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/dysgenic.htm



(Don't let the wording of the link throw you, the page is quite unbiased)

[Guinness]

Anyone who believes this and has children is contributing to dysgenics.

[Uncle Martin]

That is a quite a statement. Would you care to elaborate a bit with some details? I do agree with the theory and have children. This is an affront to me personally, I expect that in all fairness you will explain your position.

[Guinness]

All you have to do is look at a cross section of MENSA members and see that intelligent people come from all over. I would think education is a much greater factor at work here.

[IrishEyes]

by Guiness...
All you have to do is look at a cross section of MENSA members and see that intelligent people come from all over. I would think education is a much greater factor at work here.

Guiness, are you a Mensa-ite? And do you honestly believe that looking at a cross section of Mensa members will show the variety of intelligent people in this country? As someone that qualifies for membership (along with at least half of the members of this forum!), I can tell you that belonging to that organization is not always a sign of intelligence. Doing well on a standard IQ test does not mean that a person is truly intelligent!

In answer to your question Unc, I had never heard of this as a science either. But I do think it has some merit. There will always be exceptions, of course. Brilliant people will not always produce gifted children. Some absolute prodigy will come from less-than-brilliant parents. Stuff happens. But overall, I think that it is valid. But i'm not sure that it is all hereditary. My children are all incredibly bright. of course, i'm the mom, so I totallly believe that. But I also know that I am not a stupid person, I have a very high IQ, I did well in school, etc. I have always had really high goals and standards for myself, and that has always been applied to my children as well. (Poor little ducks, never allowed to slack off a bit!). I think I expect more from them because I know what I was capable of, and I expect them to be better than me. So far, they have all shown that they are more than capable of living at least to my standards. I think some of it must have been passed to them from me, but some of it is also just that I push them to succeed, and failure is just not an option. I think that if you allow your children to accept less than their absolute best from themselves, they will set lower goals for themselves than they are capable of, and will keep lowering the bar.

Education is part of it, heredity is part of it. Goals are part of it. Work is part of it. Anyhow, that's MHO. But it seems like a great topic, hope it's fruitful!!

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Guinness
All you have to do is look at a cross section of MENSA members and see that intelligent people come from all over. I would think education is a much greater factor at work here.

Being in the top 2% is nice, however, globally we are looking at over 120 MILLION people being eligible for membership in MENSA. Not so impressive when viewed in that light. Of course intelligent people come from "all over", Japan, Bora Bora, .....heck, I've even heard that there may be one in Alabama. As Irish pointed out, people with low IQs can produce very intelligent offspring, the reverse being true as well. The subject here is proportionality. For the sake of argument suppose that people with IQs under 100 have five children, those with IQs above 100 have three. If, as many studies suggest, intelligence is largely a genetic trait, this will lead to an increasingly larger percentage of less intelligent people.

I don't know what could be done to reverse the current trend of professionals having few or no children and welfare mothers having eight or more, but our government surely should stop encouraging those on social assistance to procreate. I have a neighbor whom claims that he can't work because of a "bad back", they have eight kids and one on the way. He told me that they intentionally planned this next child because they need the extra money to afford the horses he loves to ride all day with his "bad back". Our government rewards failure. We are tampering with natural selection here. Many people that would not have naturally survived are not only surviving, they're flourishing and producing offspring that would not have come into existence naturally.

Education is a factor, however I don't see an indication of it being more important than genetics. All of the education possible is moot when the student fails to understand. Ambition and determination are also factors, but no matter how hard you try and how long you persist, if you don't get it, ...you just don't get it. Education allows us to realize our full potential. We are born with that potential, whether it is high or low is genetic.

You still haven't explained your contradictory claim. "Anyone who believes this and has children is contributing to dysgenics." In this sentence you accept dysgenics, yet in the quote at the beginning of this post you reject dysgenics. Which is it? I truly want you to explain how I am contributing to something that you deny. Surely a Mensan can explain this paradox.

[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.

Your opening quote, Unc, implies that dysgenics is about stopping poor, uneducated people from having children because it makes the world a dumber place. That sounds dangerously like ideas belonging to another "ideology" which caused the deaths of millions of jews sixty years ago.

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.

We covered a story back in 2001 about dysgenics stirring up political issues in Germany:
http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=31199


Tormod

[Uncle Martin]

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 take it you were less than satisfied with their results? I don't propose that IQ tests are 100% accurate, they are indicative however.

Your opening quote, Unc, implies that dysgenics is about stopping poor, uneducated people from having children because it makes the world a dumber place.

I never intended to imply any economic factors as relevant. Many intelligent individuals come from very modest means. You've twisted my wording, no, actually that IS my fault for trying to insert my governments deficiencies into this thread. That is another topic completely. I 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.

That sounds dangerously like ideas belonging to another "ideology" which caused the deaths of millions of jews sixty years ago.

You may be confusing eugenics with dysgenics. The Nazi party, it was actually Heinrich Himmler's pet project, were interested in eugenics. They were trying to improve Germans as a race. I'm not aware of their interest in dysgenics. What evidence do you have that supports the Nazi's treatment of Jews as being based on genetics?

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.

The link you provide has the Christians against genetic research. I do think the evidence points to intelligence being an innate genetic trait. That is not to say that a couple with less than average intelligence CAN'T have a really bright kid. They do have a less likely probability than a couple with higher than average IQs(intelligence). The intelligence you are born with is all you'll ever have. Realizing your full potential is something that few accomplish, but if education supercedes intelligence we could teach a down syndrome person to do neurosurgery and a chimpanzee rocket science. We are all born with potential and also with LIMITS.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I take it you were less than satisfied with their results? I don't propose that IQ tests are 100% accurate, they are indicative however.

No, I was never told the results (classified, see). But I did take a class in evolution and science history at college, and I am pretty confident that IQ is neither indicative nor useful. Any person with a shred of intelligence can create something, call it an IQ test and make sure you will fail.

I never intended to imply any economic factors as relevant. Many intelligent individuals come from very modest means. You've twisted my wording, no, actually that IS my fault for trying to insert my governments deficiencies into this thread. That is another topic completely. I 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.

Actually, I was referring to the definition you quoted, not your own words. No word-twisting intended.

You may be confusing eugenics with dysgenics. The Nazi party, it was actually Heinrich Himmler's pet project, were interested in eugenics. They were trying to improve Germans as a race. I'm not aware of their interest in dysgenics. What evidence do you have that supports the Nazi's treatment of Jews as being based on genetics?

I have no evidence off hand...but there is plenty online (although most of it seems to be definitions).

Quote from http://www.remember.org/educate/medexp.html about the Nazi's medical research on captive Jews. The paper itself is about dysgenics but this quote pretty myuch says it all when it comes to genetics:

Genetic Experiments

The Nordic or Aryan Race was the most important goal of the Nazis. It was the largest part of the over all plan. The blonde hair, blue eye, super men were to be the only race. The Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and anyone else that did not meet the race requirements were to by cleansed from society through genocide. Hitler and the German High command made a list rules for the fellow Nazis to follow. The new rules required all SS before marriage must submit to general testing to insure racial purity. The rules for marriage were unbelievably complex. Thousands of marriages were denied. If the laws for marriage were broken it could mean the death penalty.

Dr. Sigmund Rascher and his wife learned what not following the marriage laws would hold for their lives. Mrs. Rascher was sterile. They were not illegally married; they adopted two children. They were later investigated by the Gestapo and executed for the crime. In this case, after his medical experimentation, it seems fitting that this killer was caught up by his own party.

Early in power the National Science groups were pushed into research of the race and experiments commenced. First the party needed

[Tormod]

Quote from Unc: "The intelligence you are born with is all you'll ever have. Realizing your full potential is something that few accomplish, but if education supercedes intelligence we could teach a down syndrome person to do neurosurgery and a chimpanzee rocket science. We are all born with potential and also with LIMITS."

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

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