IQ and what it means in adulthood
In article
, Beliavsky wrote: Yes, especially in continental Europe -- there are statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_fertility_ra te . European whites are largely secular and socially liberal, two qualities negatively correlated with fertility. One can debate the intellectual merits of socially liberal atheism, but demographically it is a failure. You forgot one element: parts of (wealthy) Europe with strong social supports for women to maintain their standard of living after childbirth tend to be the ones with higher birth rates -- eg, Scandinavia. Parts of Europe where the social security is poorer, and where children kill your career, have lower birth rates. Incidentally, secularism and atheism are not the same thing, and even secularism is interpreted differently in different countries. For example, the French decision to forbid the wearing of hijabs, kippahs, crosses etc in public schools was greeted with bewildered horror here -- and Australia is secular too. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
On Nov 16, 5:02 am, "Donna Metler" wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message ... Chookie wrote: In article .com, Beliavsky wrote: It's not a matter of status, and it would not be mostly for my sake. Since I think more intelligent people create benefits for society, based on the research I have cited, I will try to encourage my kids to marry smart and good people and have lots of kids. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, but I have plenty of time to think about it. On average, less intelligent and responsible people have more kids than their opposites, and that's a bad thing for society. Some people worry about global warming. I worry about this. If you want to get into eugenics, I suggest you try a breed less complex than humans. Budgies, maybe. snort Love that line... ;-) It depends how simplistic Beliavsky wants to be about it. "If my daughter marries a smart man then she'll have smarter children" has holes in the logic that you could drive a truck through. "Marrying a smart man is one of many ways in which my granddaughter can maximise her chances of having smarter children" is a lot more realistic, and I suspect it's a much more accurate statement of his beliefs. Whether marrying a smart man in a calculated attempt to get smarter children is a *desirable* thing to be aiming to get your daughter to do is a completely different matter, of course. And then there's the little thing that not all smart women may be biologically equipped to have children. I'm certainly a child-oriented person, and have made my profession largely working with children while being told on every side that I'm too smart to "waste myself" (how is teaching young children at the time of their lives when they're most primed for learning wasting yourself?)-but it took four years of trying to get pregnant the first time, which ended in a pregnancy loss, three more years to get pregnant again (one of which was recovery), which finally had a healthy child, and after 3 more years, well, no sign of another baby yet! Given my reproductive history, it's a darned good thing that I HAD a career and life goals apart from being a mother and raising children-had I decided that my role in life was to pass on my IQ and genes, it would have been pretty frustrating! Well, I think you and Beliavsky would be a poor father-daughter match long before the reproductive years. If I recall correctly you have some issues with cerebral palsy, and I think a lot of the worldview he's stated in this thread would indicate to me that he'd be someone who might have particular difficulty adapting to having a child with disabilities. Granted, I'm sure he'd do better dealing with physical disabilities rather than cognitive ones, but even so I'd think that eugenic tendencies and "imperfect" children wouldn't happily coexist in one family. Over time I'd hope that it would be the eugenic tendencies that suffered the most, but still. My DH is about the best husband and father I've ever encountered, despite his (very heritable) ADHD. I won't be the least bit surprised if the Bug turns out to have it too. But we'll deal with it if we have to, and I hope she'll be too busy exploring the world and eventually trying to contribute to its well-being to worry about her genetic flaws. Her best friend's mother has cystic fibrosis and insulin-dependent diabetes and I think that girl's got a pretty darned good family, despite the probable picture of her mother's future health. Getting lead out of gasoline has done more to improve social IQ than any smart couple's large family. It's egotistically satisfying to think that making more people like oneself is the way to improve society, but there's a much deeper satisfaction and more measurable impact from rolling up ones' sleeves and tackling social problems. It may not change anyone's genes, but there's plenty of data behind plenty of social interventions to show that they're quite effective at making the world a better place. Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel and the Bug, 4 years old and something brewing, 4/08 |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
In article
, Beliavsky wrote: I suggest you read the newspaper. We are learning what genes are responsible for various individual differences, Um, no. We are now able to point to the exact gene that tends to produce a particular characteristic. That is not to say that the environment has *no* effect. I would change the title to "Egalitarian dogmatists worry the truth is coming out". I would suggest you have a look at the HapMap Project yourself to find out exactly what it involves. It simply doesn't support the racial construction placed upon it by the blogger. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
In article ,
Sarah Vaughan wrote: Whether marrying a smart man in a calculated attempt to get smarter children is a *desirable* thing to be aiming to get your daughter to do is a completely different matter, of course. She would be a sort of Hyacinth Bucket of the intelligentsia! I think Beliavsky's best bet is to have a lesbian daughter, who can then assess possible sperm donors with a higher level of impartiality than straights usually aspire to... -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
In article ehrebeniuk-A08156.18420317112007@news, Chookie says...
In article , Beliavsky wrote: Yes, especially in continental Europe -- there are statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_fertility_ra te . European whites are largely secular and socially liberal, two qualities negatively correlated with fertility. One can debate the intellectual merits of socially liberal atheism, but demographically it is a failure. You forgot one element: parts of (wealthy) Europe with strong social supports for women to maintain their standard of living after childbirth tend to be the ones with higher birth rates -- eg, Scandinavia. Parts of Europe where the social security is poorer, and where children kill your career, have lower birth rates. Incidentally, secularism and atheism are not the same thing, and even secularism is interpreted differently in different countries. For example, the French decision to forbid the wearing of hijabs, kippahs, crosses etc in public schools was greeted with bewildered horror here -- and Australia is secular too. Ditto here. The valedictorian of our local high school took her diploma in hijab. Banty |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:18 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote: When I've seen figures (and the ones I saw were some years out of date, so this may have changed), that seemed far more likely to be a risk in Western countries, where population growth rates were consistently at or below replacement levels (almost always below, on the figures I saw). Yes, especially in continental Europe -- there are statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rtility_rat e . European whites are largely secular and socially liberal, two qualities negatively correlated with fertility. One can debate the intellectual merits of socially liberal atheism, but demographically it is a failure. Europe will become Muslim and more socially conservative because Muslims have higher birth rates. Why Muslim? I would have thought there was more chance of it becoming Catholic. (I can't find a source that gives overall numbers in Europe adhering to each religion, but certainly most of the countries seem to be predominantly Catholic.) BTW, I'm not convinced it'll become either, because there's too much variability in whether or not children grow up to follow the religion of their parents (especially in the matter of having lots of children because the religion expects it). But I would have thought that, if you're going to use the 'outbreeding' argument, Catholicism was a rather more likely contender at this point. All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
In article , Sarah Vaughan says...
Beliavsky wrote: On Nov 16, 6:18 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote: When I've seen figures (and the ones I saw were some years out of date, so this may have changed), that seemed far more likely to be a risk in Western countries, where population growth rates were consistently at or below replacement levels (almost always below, on the figures I saw). Yes, especially in continental Europe -- there are statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rtility_rat e . European whites are largely secular and socially liberal, two qualities negatively correlated with fertility. One can debate the intellectual merits of socially liberal atheism, but demographically it is a failure. Europe will become Muslim and more socially conservative because Muslims have higher birth rates. Why Muslim? I would have thought there was more chance of it becoming Catholic. (I can't find a source that gives overall numbers in Europe adhering to each religion, but certainly most of the countries seem to be predominantly Catholic.) That *has been * the oft-cited thing when there was a lot of anti-Catholic ("Papist") feeling, fmor in the past than now (Kennedy and all that). This demographic take-over boogie man is rather old. And common across the world. BTW, I'm not convinced it'll become either, because there's too much variability in whether or not children grow up to follow the religion of their parents (especially in the matter of having lots of children because the religion expects it). But I would have thought that, if you're going to use the 'outbreeding' argument, Catholicism was a rather more likely contender at this point. Yep. Banty |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:22 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote: Whether marrying a smart man in a calculated attempt to get smarter children is a *desirable* thing to be aiming to get your daughter to do is a completely different matter, of course. What's undesirable about it? The fact that any thoughts of your children choosing spouses on the basis of the relationship they can have with them rather than on the basis of the quality of children they can breed for society seem to be an afterthought, and any possibility that either of your children might not want marriage and/or parenthood as part of their goals in life doesn't even seem to be getting a consideration. I'm curious - what will happen if one of your children picks out appropriately prime genetic material to get hitched to and then discovers that the person is infertile? Would you advise them to divorce a spouse on the grounds of infertility and hook up with someone who can actually pass their superior genes on? What happens if one of your grandchildren turns out to have Down's Syndrome, or brain damage affecting their cognitive abilities, or any of the myriad other problems from genetic syndromes to sheer bad luck in the genetic shuffle that may cause them to have lower levels of intelligence? Will that child be doomed to be the Reject Grandchild, always left vividly aware of his or her inability to measure up to your expectations? I've always thought of marriage and parenthood as experiences that I aim for because they can be so deeply fulfilling in their own right, both to me and to my spouse and children - not as some sort of dry-as-dust our-duty-to-the-Party plan for benefiting society. I plan to be spending a lot of years living with my husband, working with him on the project of raising our children. I'd find it pretty miserable to spend all that time with someone I'd picked primarily on the basis of his ability to father intelligent children rather than his character or my ability to get along with him as a person. I grew up seeing how happy my parents were together - not because either of them cared about the quality of the gametes the other was carrying, but because they so much enjoyed their conversations. I saw the benefits that that had for me and my sister while we were growing up. I've always wanted that for myself and for my children, and that's what I've aimed for in choosing a mate. It would apply to sons too, since AFAIK the IQs of the two parents matter equally Of course, there are other characteristics, such as looks, character, athletic ability etc. that also have some heritability and that someone would consider. One of the characteristics my husband considered was the fact that I was an independent woman making my own way in my career and supporting myself and that he could thus be sure I wanted him for himself rather than as a meal ticket and sperm bank. I wonder how your children's potential future spouses may feel about being chosen for what their gametes can provide for society rather than for who they are themselves? Of course you would want a spouse that is smart, good-looking and kind for your own sake, too. I see no 'of course' about wanting a good-looking spouse. I want someone of good character and someone with whom I can get along and enjoy spending time with on a day-to-day basis. When looking for a spouse, I was not looking for someone whose interests were very similar to mine. I'd probably still be single if I had held out for a right-wing, stock-market-following, chess-playing, computer programming, atheist Asian Indian woman. In fact my wife is uninterested in politics, is not an avid chess player, does not program, and is Hindu. She likes to paint and garden. I did not give her an IQ test, but dummies don't become physicians, and she seemed smart in general. To sum up, I don't believe in the "soul-mate" or "I want someone just like me" approaches to mate selection but rather in looking for qualities that are more objectively desirable (and likely to be passed on). False dichotomy. The problem with looking out for a soul-mate and a clone is that it's an unrealistically high expectation of perfection, not that there's a problem with the whole idea of choosing people on the basis of how much *you* like their qualities rather than on the basis that those qualities make sound genetic material. I wasn't looking for someone who shared every single interest and belief of mine either, and the person I found certainly didn't. I like the fact that my husband has interests of his own that I just don't get and never will - it makes him a better-rounded person. But we do share *some* interests. We do have enough common ground that we can enjoy talking to each other and spending time together. If we didn't, it wouldn't be much of a relationship (believe me, BTDT with a previous boyfriend). His intelligence is important to me, but not because I'm looking to breed intelligent children for the sake of society - it just makes him a more interesting person for *me* to be with, and means that, while we're engaged on the project of raising our children to be caring, compassionate, well-adjusted, independent-minded people (qualities that are far more important to me than their scores on an IQ test or their ability to breed 'better' people for society in their turn), I can enjoy talking with him. All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:14 am, Chookie wrote: On average, less intelligent and responsible people have more kids than their opposites, and that's a bad thing for society. Some people worry about global warming. I worry about this. If you want to get into eugenics, I suggest you try a breed less complex than humans. Budgies, maybe. I suggest you read the newspaper. We are learning what genes are responsible for various individual differences, as discussed in a New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17dna.html My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA by Amy Harmon November 17, 2007 and 'Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans. No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year- old software developer, means "the egalitarian theory," that all races are equal, "is proven false."' http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html The DNA Age: In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice By Amy Harmon November 11, 2007 I would change the title to "Egalitarian dogmatists worry the truth is coming out". What truth? That particular genes may be found more commonly in one race than in another? That's ancient news. The concern is that this finding may be taken out of context to justify prejudice against races or individuals. All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell |
IQ and what it means in adulthood
On Nov 13, 3:23�am, Chookie wrote:
Actually, I have a problem with these definitions. �For most of the research I've seen, gifted means either the top 10% for IQ or (more frequently) IQ130, which is the top 5%. �THe definition of 'bright' is rather too broad here, and I wonder how the stats would look if the authors had used a better-accepted definition. Small nitpick: an IQ greater than 130 puts you in the top 2 percent on any modern test, not the top 5 percent. (Well, slightly over 2 percent -- I forget the decimal, but definitely not more than 3 percent.) I've seen a lot of gifted programs that started at the 90th percentile, but most of the literature calls 90th percentile either "bright" or "mildly gifted." I also wonder if it's more demoralizing to be considered far less bright than one's sibling than it is to grow up in a family where no one stands out much. I can't help wondering if some of those less successful kids got a lot of hassle about "Why can't you be like your brother/sister ..." --Helen |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com