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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 25th 06 11:41 PM |
State may cut money for helping foster children make transition to adulthood | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 25th 04 04:48 PM |
Bleeding not sure if it means mc ! | Lyndsey Blythe | Pregnancy | 13 | November 3rd 03 03:19 PM |
Reaching adulthood is daunting prospect for foster children | Wex Wimpy | Twins & Triplets | 1 | June 26th 03 05:08 AM |