A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IQ and what it means in adulthood



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 14th 07, 04:16 PM posted to misc.kids
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

In article .com, Beliavsky
says...

On Nov 13, 7:20 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.


No kidding. I would not want my daughter to read
in a newsgroup someday that in my opinion, her utility
to me lay "primarily" in her ability to produce high status
grandkids for me. shudder


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.


So, would you encourage your daughter to marry a man who is intelligent and
wants to work at home, so that society can have her direct contribution as wel
as through her kids?


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.


I'm not sure how more smarter would be different from more dumber. Especially
as consumption increases with income.

Banty

  #52  
Old November 14th 07, 04:17 PM posted to misc.kids
Illiana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Does anyone know of any good articles/studies on how well IQ scores in
childhood correlate with success in adulthood, given all the inherent
inaccuracies of the tests? I realise this is a pretty broad topic, but
I know there are some well-informed people here, and the subject has
come up for discussion on someone's blog so I'm interested in finding
out more.

All the best,

Sarah

I don't think success in adulthood is measured by a persons Intelligence
quotient test results from when they were a child.
A lot of it is charisma, the ability to connect with your clients/bosses,
and knowledge of your selected job field. The most unintellegent person can
exel through pure personality, and the ability to get people to like and
relate to them.

  #53  
Old November 14th 07, 04:45 PM posted to misc.kids
enigma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 447
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote in
oups.com:

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.


i think encouraging *anyone* to have 'lots of kids' is
irresponsible. i'm all for encouraging your children to choose
good, kind & hopefully intelligent partners (i'm a marriage
optional kind of person, but i know you aren't), but i think
even mentioning desire for potential grandchildren is, well,
rude & presumptuous.

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.


the world is already at a breaking point for supporting the
human population. we should be aiming for less than zero
population growth. if we do so voluntarily now, we won't have
to have it forced on us later. with global climate changing &
a period of drought ongoing, we really should be utilizing our
so-called intelligence to figure out how to reduce our impact
on the ecosystem, not continue stomping along in our current
"manifest destiny" manner, and *certainly* not encouraging
'lots of children'!
lee
  #54  
Old November 14th 07, 07:26 PM posted to misc.kids
Beliavsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

On Nov 14, 10:45 am, enigma wrote:
Beliavsky wrote groups.com:.

i think encouraging *anyone* to have 'lots of kids' is
irresponsible. i'm all for encouraging your children to choose
good, kind & hopefully intelligent partners (i'm a marriage
optional kind of person, but i know you aren't), but i think
even mentioning desire for potential grandchildren is, well,
rude & presumptuous.

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.


the world is already at a breaking point for supporting the
human population.


Paul Ehrlich and others were making such arguments in the 1970s, but
since then world population has grown and living standards have
increased. More people means more ideas about how to use resources
efficiently, as Julian Simon said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon
"His 1981 book The Ultimate Resource is a criticism of the
conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material scarcity and
resource consumption. Simon argues that our notions of increasing
resource-scarcity ignore the long-term declines in wage-adjusted raw
material prices. Viewed economically, he argues, increasing wealth and
technology make more resources available; although supplies may be
limited physically they may be viewed as economically indefinite as
old resources are recycled and new alternatives are developed by the
market. Simon challenged the notion of a pending Malthusian catastrophe
-that an increase in population has negative economic consequences;
that population is a drain on natural resources; and that we stand at
risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. Simon
argues that population is the solution to resource scarcities and
environmental problems, since people and markets innovate. His
critique was praised by Nobel Laureate economists Friedrich Hayek &
Milton Friedman, the latter in a 1998 foreword to The Ultimate
Resource II, but has also attracted many critics, such as Paul R.
Ehrlich and Albert Bartlett ."

we should be aiming for less than zero
population growth. if we do so voluntarily now, we won't have
to have it forced on us later. with global climate changing &
a period of drought ongoing, we really should be utilizing our
so-called intelligence to figure out how to reduce our impact
on the ecosystem, not continue stomping along in our current
"manifest destiny" manner, and *certainly* not encouraging
'lots of children'!
lee


  #55  
Old November 14th 07, 08:05 PM posted to misc.kids
enigma
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 447
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote in
ups.com:

On Nov 14, 10:45 am, enigma wrote:
Beliavsky wrote
groups.co
m:.

i think encouraging *anyone* to have 'lots of kids' is
irresponsible. i'm all for encouraging your children to
choose good, kind & hopefully intelligent partners (i'm a
marriage optional kind of person, but i know you aren't),
but i think even mentioning desire for potential
grandchildren is, well, rude & presumptuous.

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.


the world is already at a breaking point for supporting
the
human population.


Paul Ehrlich and others were making such arguments in the
1970s, but since then world population has grown and living
standards have increased. More people means more ideas
about how to use resources efficiently, as Julian Simon
said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon
"His 1981 book The Ultimate Resource is a criticism of the
conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material
scarcity and resource consumption. Simon argues that our
notions of increasing resource-scarcity ignore the
long-term declines in wage-adjusted raw material prices.
Viewed economically, he argues, increasing wealth and
technology make more resources available; although supplies
may be limited physically they may be viewed as
economically indefinite as old resources are recycled and
new alternatives are developed by the market. Simon
challenged the notion of a pending Malthusian catastrophe
-that an increase in population has negative economic
consequences; that population is a drain on natural
resources; and that we stand at risk of running out of
resources through over-consumption. Simon argues that
population is the solution to resource scarcities and
environmental problems, since people and markets innovate.
His critique was praised by Nobel Laureate economists
Friedrich Hayek & Milton Friedman, the latter in a 1998
foreword to The Ultimate Resource II, but has also
attracted many critics, such as Paul R. Ehrlich and Albert
Bartlett ."


ya know, i don't give a rat's ass about the economy, since
that's a societal construct, but actual *resources* are
finite. just because more people makes procuring resources
easier & therefore cheaper still doesn't address the issue of
what we do when they run out... and they WILL run out.
are you saying you have the right to drive that big 8MPG car
because overpopulation makes getting that fuel cheap for you?
doesn't matter than in 3 generations or less there won't be
oil because, well, it's good for the economy right now to
waste it?
i see IQ has nothing to do with wisdom, once again.
lee
  #56  
Old November 14th 07, 08:19 PM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:20 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.

No kidding. I would not want my daughter to read
in a newsgroup someday that in my opinion, her utility
to me lay "primarily" in her ability to produce high status
grandkids for me. shudder


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.


But what you *said* (in a public forum, to which your
daughter will have access someday) is that your *primary*
reason for encouraging her to get a good education is so she can
can produce high status/smart/whatever you want to call it
grandkids for you and desirable citizens for society. You didn't
say an ancillary benefit, or something more moderate. You
said it's the *PRIMARY* reason you'd want her to have a good
education. What, she's not deserving of a good education
unless she wants to procreate? Her passions and ambitions
and interests and so forth take a back seat in your mind
to her utility in populating the world with more people
just like you? If my father (or mother) ever said such a
thing about me, with the concomitant implications about my
intrinsic worth as a human being and my abilities to contribute
to the world in other ways, I would be beyond furious.
Hopefully your daughter won't ever stumble on that post.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #57  
Old November 14th 07, 10:32 PM posted to misc.kids
Beliavsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 453
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

On Nov 14, 2:19 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Hopefully your daughter won't ever stumble on that post.


If I hold the same beliefs 20 years from now, and I if they guide the
advice I give, it would be wrong not to make the beliefs underlying
the advice explicit. For example, hypothetically, if I didn't want my
daughter to pursue a PhD because I wanted her to get married instead,
it would be wrong to discourage her based on a "tough academic job
market" if that were not the real reason. If my beliefs change, so
that my future advice and actions don't depend on my current
philosophy, then what I wrote on Usenet 20 years will be unimportant.

Maybe you and a few others think that if I think the same way 20 years
from now, I ought to leave the parental guidance to her mother (who is
non-ideological). I'll take that under advisement.



  #58  
Old November 14th 07, 11:05 PM posted to misc.kids
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,293
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 14, 2:19 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Hopefully your daughter won't ever stumble on that post.


If I hold the same beliefs 20 years from now, and I if they guide the
advice I give, it would be wrong not to make the beliefs underlying
the advice explicit. For example, hypothetically, if I didn't want my
daughter to pursue a PhD because I wanted her to get married instead,
it would be wrong to discourage her based on a "tough academic job
market" if that were not the real reason. If my beliefs change, so
that my future advice and actions don't depend on my current
philosophy, then what I wrote on Usenet 20 years will be unimportant.

Maybe you and a few others think that if I think the same way 20 years
from now, I ought to leave the parental guidance to her mother (who is
non-ideological). I'll take that under advisement.


That statement says something about the way
you feel about her and her worth as a human being and
her reason for existence *NOW*. It can't help but
color your parenting. It will guide the decisions you
make throughout her life and the interactions you have
with her in millions of tiny ways. I think the issue
is NOW, not 20 years from now.
I didn't get where I am because of how my father
was when I was 20. The parenting gig was pretty much
over by that time.

Best wishes,
Ericka
  #59  
Old November 15th 07, 09:14 AM posted to misc.kids
Chookie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,085
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

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.

A friend of mine once wondered why her husband had not turned into a juvenile
delinquent. His apparently intelligent, moral, respectable adoptive parents
instilled two conflicting beliefs in him: that he deserved the best of
everything, and that he couldn't do anything much. When she met him, he had a
wardrobe of expensive clothes and a rented apartment in one of the best spots
in Sydney, but he had never gone to Uni, never learnt to drive, never been on
an overseas trip (he was 38). He was also spending more than he earned --
every single week, because his Mum used to give him money from the substantial
pile left by his late father. So... intelligent? Moral? What do you think?

In the last few years he has taken his degree while working full-time, learned
to drive, and fathered five lovely children -- that's why they haven't taken
any overseas trips! What do you think of him now?

All five children have learning disabilities related to a rare genetic problem
that would not have been picked up by pre-birth testing. They may never have
the shallow type of success that most of this thread has assumed.

And that's why I suggest you stick to budgies.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/
  #60  
Old November 15th 07, 10:32 AM posted to misc.kids
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default IQ and what it means in adulthood

Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:20 pm, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

If I have a daughter, I'll want her to get a good education so that she
has more choice in what *she* wants to do, regardless of whether that's
having a high-powered career or being a SAHM or spending some time on
both, or having a large family or a small one or no children. I'll want
her to do what she finds fulfilling, rather than what I might want. For
that, I've got my own life.

No kidding. I would not want my daughter to read
in a newsgroup someday that in my opinion, her utility
to me lay "primarily" in her ability to produce high status
grandkids for me. shudder


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.


I think caring and compassionate people create benefits for society.
Intelligence may give people more option for doing so, but doesn't
strike me as the most important trait. I also believe that, although a
great many factors influence the kind of character that a person will
eventually have, being raised by parents who want you rather than
parents who have you out of a sense of duty to society is likely to be a
good start.

Most importantly, I believe that the best people to be doing any given
job are the people who have both natural aptitude for it and a love of
the work. In other words, no matter how worthwhile a job might be in
the abstract you're probably not going to contribute as much to it if
you're only doing it out of a sense of duty. A person who feels that
way about a given job is likely to contribute a lot more to society if,
instead of doing that job, he or she looks at how his or her talents and
inclinations can best be used elsewhere. Raising great kids is a
wonderful way to improve society, IMO. Raising kids when you don't have
much interest in parenthood is rather less of a good way, and I think
anybody who feels that way is going to contribute far more by looking at
ways they can use *their* particular aptitudes to contribute to society.

On average, less intelligent and responsible people have more kids
than their opposites, and that's a bad thing for society.


Indeed. And the reason it happens is because less responsible people
are less likely to make responsible choices, and hence less likely to
take factors such as "Do I really want children? How many children do I
feel I can best take care of?" into account when making parenting
decisions. Encouraging even *more* people to disregard such factors and
just to go ahead and have children because it's the Thing To Do does not
strike me as a particularly smart way of dealing with the problem.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weirdly Low OGTT Means... What? Andrea Phillips Pregnancy 6 March 29th 06 06:05 PM
Earliest Memories Remembered During Adulthood Radium General 20 March 26th 06 12:41 AM
State may cut money for helping foster children make transition to adulthood wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 March 25th 04 05:48 PM
Bleeding not sure if it means mc ! Lyndsey Blythe Pregnancy 13 November 3rd 03 04:19 PM
Reaching adulthood is daunting prospect for foster children Wex Wimpy Twins & Triplets 1 June 26th 03 05:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.