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
  #71  
Old November 17th 07, 08:42 AM posted to misc.kids
Chookie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,085
Default 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/
  #72  
Old November 17th 07, 09:26 AM posted to misc.kids
Akuvikate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 143
Default 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
  #73  
Old November 17th 07, 10:59 AM posted to misc.kids
Chookie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,085
Default 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/
  #74  
Old November 17th 07, 11:12 AM posted to misc.kids
Chookie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,085
Default 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/
  #75  
Old November 17th 07, 02:04 PM posted to misc.kids
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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

  #76  
Old November 17th 07, 08:36 PM posted to misc.kids
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default 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

  #77  
Old November 17th 07, 09:02 PM posted to misc.kids
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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

  #78  
Old November 17th 07, 09:12 PM posted to misc.kids
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default 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

  #79  
Old November 17th 07, 09:14 PM posted to misc.kids
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default 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

  #80  
Old November 17th 07, 09:38 PM posted to misc.kids
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default 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
 




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 11:37 AM.


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.