They do not need to mix, since each has its own methods and disciplines. But neither can stand alone as an all-encompassing explanation of reality.Again, topic in this thread is not science vs. religion, although I do think they do not mix well.
Why would you base your opinions of religion on the scientific literature? That would be like basing your opinions of quantum mechanics on the literature of Chaucer.No, on earlier post in this message board, I based my opinions on religion from my examination of the scientific literature
I agree. So why not stick to the topic? You said you were troubled by the Bell Curve (you did read it, didn’t you?). You’ve been given answers now by me (someone who has read the book and has some background in statistics), a school teacher who has observed some of these particular folks who might fit the sample, and someone who has a masters degree in immunology and can speak to the eugenics solution you propose in a very concrete scientific way. Let’s talk about what still troubles you here in light of those comments.Again, topic in this thread is not science vs. religion, although I do think they do not mix well.
I did read most of it (I skipped the section about IQ and employment). I did not like the opening chapter (I think it is titled “The emergence of the cognitive elite”). Such elitism makes an egalitarian ill.I agree. So why not stick to the topic? You said you were troubled by the Bell Curve (you did read it, didn’t you?). You’ve been given answers now by me (someone who has read the book and has some background in statistics), a school teacher who has observed some of these particular folks who might fit the sample, and someone who has a masters degree in immunology and can speak to the eugenics solution you propose in a very concrete scientific way. Let’s talk about what still troubles you here in light of those comments.
Some interesting comments. You realize that H&M are just summarizing data here. If this is how humanity has evolved - that is- some will have a higher intelligence quotient than others - why should this bother you? Egalitarianism flies in the face of what nature has given us. Whether it be intelligence as represented by an IQ test or other genetic factors such as physical abilities or the desire to work harder than the average person. Why would you desire to equalize these factors in human beings contrary to natural evolution?I did read most of it (I skipped the section about IQ and employment). I did not like the opening chapter (I think it is titled “The emergence of the cognitive elite”). Such elitism makes an egalitarian ill.
I don’t recall any such implication, but it has been a while since I’ve read the book. Again though, why should we try to buck what nature has given us?The book seemed to imply that the poor (i.e. in Herrnstein and Murray’s world, this is another synonym for people with low IQ) as a burden.
And I think your fears are well founded. This seems to work against any eugenic solution. BTW, I don’t recall any suggestions in the book that eugenics is a viable option to cure these differences.Regarding my “solution”, I did not explicitly advocate embryo selection. However, my own goals are much more ambitious than eliminating the one standard deviation difference between whites and blacks; I hope to reduce the differences in cognitive ability among individuals (between races and within races) to zero (or a small standard deviation using today’s norms). I fear eugenics will lead to more human suffering.
Quite a few presuppositions on your part here that have to be dealt with before we can go any further. First, you presuppose that eliminating differences in IQ will lead to social equality, but this is far from being clear even from what we can gather from the conclusions of the book. Second, why would we want to place everyone on the same plane in terms of social society? You presuppose that this would make everyone happier. But how you come to this conclusion has yet to be explained.If we do not invoke eugenics, how are we going to reduce individual differences to zero if IQ is strongly hereditary? Does the end justify the means? If individual differences in ability causes difference social outcomes, it is best to eliminate those differences.
With all due respect, tampering with genetics to provide a solution seems to go against your signature “If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin . . . .” It seems that the solution would be in changing our institutions.Again, I did not start this thread as an apologetic for eugenics, but I do think it is a rather tempting proposal.
I looked at the link. Seems to be contrary to your signature, and there was no analysis as to whether you humanity as a whole was any happier as a result.The question is how do you address these problems? Do you have access to this technology?
I meant to be somewhat funny by providing that link.\
I looked at the link. Seems to be contrary to your signature, and there was no analysis as to whether you humanity as a whole was any happier as a result.
I don’t recall any such implication, but it has been a while since I’ve read the book. Again though, why should we try to buck what nature has given us?The book seemed to imply that the poor (i.e. in Herrnstein and Murray’s world, this is another synonym for people with low IQ) as a burden.
To what end? To waste my time?I meant to be somewhat funny by providing that link.
I linked to Star Trek wiki.
I didn’t say anything about human diginity. Is that what you want to discuss, not what you originally posted?But how is that chimerical technology against the notion of human dignity? Julian Bashir did not have to murdered when he recieved his enhancements.
But since we cannot do anything to reverse a persistent vegetative state or Alzheimer’s disease, I do not expect “Accelerated critical neural pathway formation” to be available quickly (unless we wait for the year 2300).
But look what that technology did to Dr. Bashir.
Well folks, it has become obvious now that we don’t really have a person here whose had “nightmares” and wants to discuss the issue posted. We’ve got a good old fashion bait post to hopefully draw folks in on another issue altogether. I must admit, I don’t appreciate wasting my time to have tried and helped. Just don’t reply to him. He’s got another agenda here.But they explicitly called for the elimination of welfare to the poor.
No, a means of maximize a population’s intelligence with a long term program does not require one to murder those who are intelligent. Eventually the population’s intelligence will approach the theoretical maximum, and there would be no need for continued selection.If you want to make everyone of nearly equal IQ, you might have to get rid of those with high IQs. Would we say that, if your parents knew you would be of too high IQ, they might get rid of you?
Certainly, I’d think no way. Your worthy as yourself.
Well, I did have some unpleasant dreams about it. I am engrossed in that topic, and I do fear its unpleasant implications. I remember screaming in one of them though.To what end? To waste my time?
I didn’t say anything about human diginity. Is that what you want to discuss, not what you originally posted?
Well folks, it has become obvious now that we don’t really have a person here whose had “nightmares” and wants to discuss the issue posted. We’ve got a good old fashion bait post to hopefully draw folks in on another issue altogether. I must admit, I don’t appreciate wasting my time to have tried and helped. Just don’t reply to him. He’s got another agenda here.
And Ribozyme. You’ve now shot your credibility with me, and I would guess with quite a few other posters who have seen this pathetic display. I’m sure your Catholic parents would be proud to know that you are the little boy that cried wolf on CA.
Just an example of the research into the genetic basis for intelligence. Combine that with ambitious parents who seek to enhance the intelligence of their children. It seems Lynn’s embryo selection method will be introduced first before genetic engineering (I do not think genetic engineering would invoke any killing, but I also fear it will lead to a society where it will exacerbate social inequality).Progress towards identifying quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for complex traits like intelligence and common disorders like mental retardation has been slower than expected. An important factor is that most QTL effects may be much smaller than expected—not just 1% effect sizes but perhaps effects as small as .1%. If so, this would mean that studies have been seriously underpowered to detect and to replicate QTL effects. We have used microarrays to genotype DNA pooled for groups of low versus high intelligence in order to screen very large numbers of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on very large samples in the quest for QTLs of very small effect size: We find no effect sizes greater than .5%. Microarrays with 500,000 SNPs are now available that facilitate genomewide scans which will make it possible to identify nearly all SNP associations that account for 1% of the variance of intelligence—if there are any QTL effect sizes as large as 1%.
Actually you can not define the Mean=Mode, nor define the std dev= (anything), human data would typically be skewed. There is something I am trying to get you to look at, let’s try this. Suppose you had the ability to create a super intelligent human and this was done however that individual was not educated, practically no reading, writing, or arithmetic. So the question becomes how does that human score on the WISC?From my OP:
Ask yourself what is “IQ” first?
By definition, an IQ test’s mean (median, and mode) is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. (Thus it is an ordinal scale). Different tests might use a different standard deviation, but this practice (using a 15 point standard deviation) was first adopted by David Wechsler. Of course, the test was normed using a sample from a “white” population (usually from Great Britain or the United States).
When I read IQ scores from the professional literature, I use the 15 point standard deviation assumption.
I hope you know why it is an oxymoron to say “raising everyone’s IQ to 200”.
To answer your other questions, I think that little children will not be administered the WAIS, but the WISC instead so that answers your question regarding age.