RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


The breeding of America part I(42 posts)

The breeding of America part Ijrm
Aug 15, 2003 6:26 AM
Study: Uneducated Outbreeding Intelligentsia 2-To-1

CHICAGO—In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation's uneducated are breeding twice as soon and twice as often as those with university diplomas. "The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional," study leader Kenneth Stalls said. "America's intellectual elite, as a result, is badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates." Added Stalls: "At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like." High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, "All I know is, we're in love."
re: The breeding of America part IDougSloan
Aug 15, 2003 6:49 AM
While not put very delicately, hasn't that always been true?
re: The breeding of America part IJon Billheimer
Aug 15, 2003 7:02 AM
Does the "dumb demographic" have anything to do with America's increasing religiosity and the flight into nonrational beliefs?
Don't piss me offlotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 8:38 AM
I believe people are becoming more religious because the world is not making sense without it.

The notion that you're a monkey, isnt' that fulfilling nor make living worthwhile.

The notion that there is no right or wrong is clearly WRONG, because experience shows that there is a right and a wrong.

Your seemingly humanistic logic doesn't sit well with people who see a world filled with growing crime, lust and every other human shortcoming, not some upward climb towards utopia.

Religion, typically, brings peace into ones life, meaning and direction, whereas atheistic beliefs lead to suicide (what's the point).

I think people wanting life to be more than "you live once and then die", is a fine thing. lay off.
now that's irony - nmMJ
Aug 15, 2003 8:44 AM
Whylotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 9:06 AM
God's not a pacifist.
God hates evil.
God hates human pride in himself.

Jesus was nice but said there is an end and many people will not like it. Get straight with God.
usually that's where the disconnect is...ColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 8:47 AM
who decides what is right and wrong? or is that somewhat malleable?
What do you have against monkeys?Tri_Rich
Aug 15, 2003 8:53 AM
Also I don't think religion neccessarily bring peace into anyone's life, it can but it doesn't neccessarily.
Yes it doeslotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 9:10 AM
It gives reasons to go on. Puts things into perspective. Gives hope. Let's them know they are loved by someone no matter what.

That definately gives peace. Think about it.
Yes it CANTri_Rich
Aug 15, 2003 9:13 AM
Ideally it does. But for people in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and elsewhere it has not.
It's sure done wonders in the middle east (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 9:31 AM
It consoles the feeble-mindedfiltersweep
Aug 16, 2003 12:35 PM
Sorry, I had to be a bit provocative, but there was quite a heady discussion in the philosphoical community earlier in the 20th century as science was supplanting religion. There are all sorts of ways of gaining perspective, of having hope in a godless universe.

Sorry, but saying god "wanted" a loved one to die does little to offer an agrieved survivor hope. Loved? All sorts of fundamentalist sects routinely use shunning as a measure of social control- sorry, but true "love" is a bit less conditional (and don't give me the 'love the sinner/hate the sin' crap).

Feebleminded... all your morality is already prefabricated- it is just like subscribing to a magazine.

Peace? It is better to kill "heathens" in an effort to conform them to Christ than it is to let them burn in hell for all eternity... how many holy wars does it take to prove that principle ;)
Never mind monkeys, what does he have against LUST?OldEdScott
Aug 15, 2003 9:23 AM
For the record: I'm for itmohair_chair
Aug 15, 2003 9:29 AM
It's where little Christians come from.OldEdScott
Aug 15, 2003 9:32 AM
Little secular humanists too. Little Dems and Repubs (I think) for that matter, too. Seems like all sides ought to stand up and cheer for Lust.
This coud take all day.lotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 11:11 AM
Meaning, battling mis information.

You'll have to think about this.

What is the difference between:
I love ice cream.
I love my wife.
I love porn.
I love my mom.

Loving porn and loving your wife (in general) are different terms. Meaning, sometimes your wife will appreciate you loving her like a porn star, but she will always like you loving her in a wifely way.

The greek language covers each differently and is why it's better in breaking it down.

Babies do come from lust, but hopefully most come from love. The kind that looks for the best for the other person rather than lust, which is treating someone like an object.

You don't care about the object or what happens to it, you just want to use it.

Love in the true sense is wanting the other persons best and caring for them. Hope a lot of babies come from that.
You just broke the world long-jump recordOldEdScott
Aug 15, 2003 11:21 AM
in leaping from lust to porn!

Never said a word about porn. Just said lust was a good thing. Love and lust are neither contradictory nor exclusive.

Sure, porn involves lust, but the reverse is not at all necessarily true.

My own babies came from a nice combination of love and lust, and I don't recall porn ever entering the equation.

Of course, I'm a secular humanist liberal who believes in God but the belief came from a Drug so it doesn't count, so what do I know about things like love and sexuality, eh?
Take morelotterypick
Aug 15, 2003 12:54 PM
You are wrong. Porn is about lust, lust is looking at someone like an object and the desire to treat them as such.

it does not care for the person or about their feelings. it's about self gratification.

Love again, is a bad word because it's not specific enough, which is why I tell girls when I guy you're dating says I love you. Aske them what they mean.

If they stammer because they in truth just want sex, then you know.

If they say they want your best andthe best for you and want to spend their life with you, then things could be good.

Selfless love and lust are vastly different.
i thought lust was desire, want, need, thirst.rufus
Aug 15, 2003 3:38 PM
lust is not restricted to people. you can lust for knowledge, lust for the perfect ride route.

it's not about treating someone as an object. that is objectifying. it's about want, for whatever reason. i think you can lust for the one you love. does that make it bad? i also think you can lust without harming or objectifying someone.
Something to chew on.Sintesi
Aug 15, 2003 9:26 PM
"Religion is to spirituality what pornography is to sexuality."

--Robyn Hitchcock
gotta love Robyn!! nmMJ
Aug 17, 2003 11:23 PM
the full Hitchcock quoteColnagoFE
Aug 18, 2003 9:58 AM
from the movie Storefront Hitchcock:

Church, Infidels, and Carcasses
"I don't know what kind of church you like to imagine but I like to imagine a church full of carcasses. You know, there's one big carcass at the end in extreme pain and there's a lot of carcasses in various stages of agony kneeling towards it, and there'll be, coming down the aisle, these two kind of proto-carcasses with their hat and mangled digits bonded together in a bloody welt, and they're being clubbed by a priest.

Outside the church there's even more carcasses who hopefully are at rest and above the church is a sort of huge mega-carcass with a long white beard and a top hat who's going 'well done, my children.' And there's another, he's on his mobile phone to the bloke in the vestry or whatever it is, and he's 'I think we got more in than usual, Lord,' and he says 'okay, whang it up next time.'

I mean, it's very dangerous to mock people's beliefs because you can be tortured and destroyed by other human beings. Very seldom do divine forces actually wreak their vengeance on you, but it's very dangerous to be an infidel in someone's eyes. I believe very firmly in God, I mean, in terms of spirituality. I also have an infinite contempt for religion which I think is hijacking people's spirituality for political purposes and I think religion is perilously close to pornography in that respect."
another good one about MuzakColnagoFE
Aug 18, 2003 10:02 AM
from the same movie: "...there was this Muzak playing in the lobby and I had a hangover and I was carrying a meat cleaver, and I went up to the desk and I said 'Could you turn the Muzak down please,' and they said 'I'm sorry sir, we can't,' and I said--I took my cleaver up--and I said 'Why not?' and they said 'because it's pleasing'..."
It's where little Repubs come from...Tri_Rich
Aug 15, 2003 11:20 AM
I thought they came from pods....

J/K
Always......MR_GRUMPY
Aug 15, 2003 7:49 AM
Likewise, Poor= Less Education
Less Education= Poor
Poor= More Kids= More, Less educated Kids.
That would be funny if it weren't true...newridr
Aug 15, 2003 9:10 AM
Looks like Springer will have guests for a long, long time.
re: The breeding of America part IDuane Gran
Aug 15, 2003 12:04 PM
It is has been said that education is the key to preventing teenage pregnancy and other life shattering mistakes. I believe it, but for the sake of an orderly society it is probably well enough to keep a critical mass of educated people. I'm shocked by nearly all statistics I hear anymore.
re: The breeding of America part Iempacher6seat
Aug 15, 2003 12:23 PM
Is this even relevent? Do two stupid people always have stupid children? Do you know how many kids I went to school with came from wealthy, intelligent parents and are now relying on government assistence to get by because all they did was smoke pot and skip class in highschool? What about the kids who came from poor, less successful families who get academic scholarships?

Does being a college grad even mean you're smarter then the average person? I'm sure we all know people with degrees who are incompitent at what they do. It just takes hard work to get a degree, you don't have to be exceptionally smart. What about skilled trade workers? Sure some of them are meat heads, but many of them are very intelligent people. Do they not count as "intelligent" because they didn't go to college?
intelligence vs common senseColnagoFE
Aug 15, 2003 12:43 PM
Some PhDs I know can tell you all there is to know about some small insignificant subject, but couldn't balance their checkbooks.
common sense53T
Aug 15, 2003 3:13 PM
Wasn't it Einstein that defined common sense as "the sum total of all the prejudices that you are exposed to before age six"?

Would you care to guess what percentage of the world's population above age 18 can balance a check book? How about in the US only?

Did you kow that some PhD's are quite well educated, and are very good at mundane tasks like household accounting. Some of the PhD's that designed the PC you are reading this on, sit around and comment about the personality quirks of the PC users of the world. Facinating.
Many questions, but you won't like the answers53T
Aug 15, 2003 12:47 PM
Is this even relevent? - I'm not sure, you decide.

Do two stupid people always have stupid children? - Not always, but usually. Despite whatever fantasy you might be told, intelligence is largely genetic. Also, potential for educational achievement is strongly linked to intelligence.

Do you know how many kids...? - No.

Does being a college grad mean you are smarter than the average person? - Certainly not. However, if I take a random sampling of college grads of anywhere from 10 to 1000 people, the mean of thier measured IQs will be over 100, which is by definition "smarter than the average person. The results do not extrapolate down to a sample size of 1, as you point out.

What about skilled trade workers? - What about them?

Do they not count as intelligent because they did not go to college? - They count. Their intelligence (an atempt to arbitrarily measure thier cognative ability) can be tested and recorded. If I do a study on your average auto asssembly line I will likely find a mean IQ over 100, smarter than average. The mean will likely be lower than the Brown University class of 2003, but it will be over 100. This is becaus the auto workers are not a random sample of they population, they have been screened. The fact that they are capable of holding a manufacturing job and have been selected by thier emplyers to remain on the job, puts them in a select group. If I were to do the same study in a public housing project or on a welfare recipient pool, I would likely find a mean IQ below 100. This group has also been screened, since all the people capable of good employment have been removed.
Unfounded assumptions.czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 1:01 PM
You seem to be equating higher education and social ambition with intelligence. That is a narrow, if utilitarian, view.
Au contraire53T
Aug 15, 2003 3:08 PM
I would never "link" the two. Nor would I imply a causal relationship between any two of the items you mention. I haven't made any important assumptions. I simply state what I expect to find in controled intelligence tests.

Would you doubt any of my hypotheses? Which one(s)?
Okay, "expectations".czardonic
Aug 15, 2003 3:51 PM
I doubt that potential for educational acheivement is strongly linked to intelligence unless you are talking about the true academic elite. Strictly speaking they may be linked, but practicaly speaking it hardly matters. Any idiot has the potential to complete an undergrad or graduate program. It is more a matter of mental discipline, which I don't think is related to intellect.

I think the problem here is that intelligence is so often loosely defined to include elements of judgement, temperment and environment.

What I would like to know is this: Before it became the norm for "intelligent" people to go to college, did they still wait until later in life to start families? Or is this "phenomenon" of high fertility among the less educated simply a function of the fact that people who complete their education and join the workforce in their teens have no incentive to wait until their mid-twenties to start families?
Linkage53T
Aug 15, 2003 7:02 PM
Any idiot does not have the potential to complete college, only a select few idiots. Do you doubt that a typical graduate degree program would have a mean IQ over 100? I would bet a lot of money on it.

I would go so far as to say "mental discipline" corelates with inteligence. Of course it would be very difficult to measure mental discipline, which is why I try to limit my points to intelligence.

You may be right that term intelligence is often misused to describe other attributes and sometimes behaviors, but I am using it in the clinical sence only.

You raise an interesting question about the historical roots of underbreeding intelligencia. Although you do tip your hand by mentioning "late twenties" as a late start for a family. My entire subdivision, 75 housholds (all college grads) had their first kids in their early 30's or later. Perhaps medieval people of higher intelligence tended to recognize the relationship between number of kids and the cost of feeding them, and thus limited their reproduction. They may have also had a better grasp on reproductive and contraceptive "technologies".

Let's not forget the basic math of measuring intelligence. The median IQ is always 100. If the lower scoring people increase in population, the higher scoring peoples scores actually go up. The median stays at 100 and the test is recalibated. Something to think about when reading these stories.
Class, not intellectfiltersweep
Aug 16, 2003 12:45 PM
"If the lower scoring people increase in population, the higher scoring peoples scores actually go up. The median stays at 100 and the test is recalibated. Something to think about when reading these stories."

Hilarious... now apply that principle to moral relativism.

Darwinism gets all out of sorts with people- thank god we are past the point where the biggest ape is in charge of the clan. Intelligence usually stands for something... unless we are talking about the presidency. George W. should inspire countless future generations of sub-geniuses to aspire for the sublime!

Seriously though, it really ends up being much more about CLASS than intellect. I went to college with all sorts of people- idiots and non, but predominantly we were all from the same class. We like to think of the US as being non-classist, but most things can be broken down by socio-economic lines. I know plenty of dim bulbs who were so motivated to be excellent risk-takers and enterpreneurs- who are extremely successful financially. Me...? I had nothing to prove ;)
Higher education is not about IQ.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 10:39 AM
I would bet that there are many bright kids who never go to college simply because it was not an option that was available to them. Contrary to popular myth, social class does play a part in who attends colleges.

Moreover, isn't IQ simply a measure of intellectual potential? You have to make a lot of leaps in logic to tie it educational acheivement, which I maintain is far more dependent on motivation and discipline. Any baryard animal is capable of discipline.

Also, I'm not sure you offered anything other than an assumption that medieval people bred less if they were more intelligent. And what about the influence of the institutions like the Catholic Church that actively encouraged large families? Is there some kind of IQ deficit behind these policies?
Great questions53T
Aug 19, 2003 12:20 PM
You're argument that IQ is not an indicator of anything important is a good argument, but I will not challenge you on that point. My hypotheses starts with groups of college grads, and groups of non-college grads and uses IQ as a measure of the groups intellignece. The presence of high scoring individuals in other groups doesn't have an impact on my argument, unless there were so many high-scoring people in the drop out group that they swing the mean score above the college grad group. I maintain that that case will not be observed. You correctly point out that social class correlates closely with college attendance. I would counter that IQ correates closely with social class as well, making it difficult to isolate the cause/effect you are suggesting.

The leap I make to tie it to educational achievment is not a very big one. My assumption is that the graduating class has a higher mean IQ than the factory floor. If you doubt that, then you have an excellent platform to attack my conclusion. If you agree, then you have to find some other way to dispute my claims.

You could argue causality. For instance if I observed high IQ scores in the college group, you could argue that college causes high IQ scores, while I argue that high IQ people tend to do well in HS and college. See the difference? Both arguments are supported by the facts, but neither conclusively.

I don't know if IQ is a measure of intellectual potential. In long-term studies, scores remain fairly constant over a persons life from age 6 to middle age. This may be a confounded result since IQ tests judged as "good" are the ones that produce such a constant result.

As far as medieval IQ-indexed behavior, you are correct that I was mearly suggesting a mechnism that would explain the possibility of the original poster's theory. Economic concern is something that I would assume is found more in smarter medieval folks than it is is less smart medievals. The influence of religion could be applied to either side of the argument. For example, the medieval church encouraged procreation, therefore those who were more devout reporoduced more. What if the more devout turned out to be less intelligent as a group? That scenerio would support the original poster's theory. Can you suggest any thought experiment that argues being more devout is correlated with higher than average intelligence?
Lots of arguments here. . .czardonic
Aug 19, 2003 5:22 PM
. . .most of I don't have any hard data on.

Suffice it to say that I am not convinced that IQ and educational acheivement are linked or that IQ and social class are linked. I would be very interested to know how the mean score on the factory floor compares to the graduating class.

I think the whole problem with the overarching theory in the original post is that similar forces have been at play for many generations, yet we continue to become more educated and more affluent. That suggests to me that either IQ is not hereditary or theories about IQ and economic or relgious demographics can not be true.
Excellent53T
Aug 20, 2003 5:39 PM
You are a brave man to even consider that the factory floor will beat the graduating class in a team IQ test. Of course if the factory floor wins, you win a lot of these arguments.

You state that you think we as a race, continue to become more educated and more affluent. Perhaps as a nation only? Even then I have doubts as to our upward spiral. However, I am sometimes isolated by my local demgraphic. For instance, when I go to the Mall I see many more people trimming down and getting fit. I also see far less people smoking. however, the nation as a whole is reportedly getting fatter, and the drops in smoking have not been all that large.

I could be convinced that we are getting more affluent, but I don't know about more educated. Certainly education spending at all levels is increasing. More colleges are granting more degrees, even as a percent of population, but there may be other factors affecting the "education" level of the nation.

Let's not forget the great filter effect either. Recall that the US is largely populated by decendants of immigrants. Immigration, even for severe economic reasons is a huge filter. I contend that the folks who left their own countries in search of something better were, on the whole, smarter and more self-motivated (perhaps those two factors correlate?) than those who stayed behind. Net result is that intelligence studies in the new world have a built in skew that may throw off the results or cloud the link with heredity.

Is Europe becoming better educated and more affluent? Teh picture is not so clear these days.
There seems to be a contradiction in your position.czardonic
Aug 21, 2003 10:08 AM
You imply that increased granting of degrees does not indicate increased education. I take that as an insinuation that college programs are getting easier, rather than students getting smarter.

Doesn't that dillute your theory that educational acheivenemt is an accurate predictor of IQ? I suppose it doesn't if you also hold that the IQ of factory workers is falling as the IQ of college grads falls.

But I would also add that the technical skill required to do factory work (at least in this country) might also be increasing, and it would thus seem that a higher IQ would be required to keep pace.
re: Parental educational attainmentjrm
Aug 15, 2003 6:18 PM
Is the largest factor there is in whether a child achieves or doesnt. Do as i say but dont do as i do.