Now, if only we can do away with reality TV and Joel Schumacher movies…
Francis Galton, who pioneered eugenics, also discovered regression to the mean. I would have thought that regression to the mean would be a great argument against eugenics on a mathematical basis.
Whats the deal here? New generations are affected by their ancestry as well as their parents, so over time successive generations become more like their ancestors.
It should be noted that Mike Judge (Office Space) has a new movie coming out this winter called Idiocracy. Plot synopsis:
The notion that poor people worldwide = stupid people is not necessarily a valid assertion. Many of the most brilliant and productive minds in history came from quite humble (even poor) origins. In most cases this argument in eugenics debates is a thinly veiled smokescreen for the notion that “poor black people are stupid and fecund”, and if you tear at the argument enough, that’s almost always what the issue in thse debates really is. We’re not talking about poor Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Irish etc. It’s poor black people (and usually poor black Americans) that are the center piece in this argument.
Please permit me to drop an interesting factoid. Everybody tends to assume that the poor produce the most children in this country and elsewhere, perhaps because of the stereotype of welfare queens have seventeen babies just to get rich. However, in last month’s issue of Psychology Today there’s an article about how different social classes view their children. Among the details is the fact that in America the rich have more children than anyone else, and not by a small margin either.
Poor: 2.1 children per couple
Middle class: 1.8 children per couple
Rich: 2.2 children per couple
Very rich: 2.7 children per couple
Right on. Progress in civilizing society quite often results from flashes of insight by an individual, especially in scientific and technical matters, not on the absolute “intelligence” of the group as a whole - whatever that might mean.
You know, that makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
I think the OP’s premise is ridiculous… but apparently, Mike Judge shares the premise, and has based an entire film around it.
Define intelligence - while I think most people would agree that parents pass traits onto their offspring, what constitutes intelligence depends on a host of factors. Also, envronmental considerations are important in whether these traits are expressed or not.
If true - then this is the fate of every civilzation. Think of the Roman Empire - can its’ decline be entirely attributed to the decline in the intelligence of the Roman population? I think not…
Depends on which segment of the population you are referring to. In general, I would agree with you. But refer back to the Roman Empire. Roman citizens certainly enjoyed the benefits of Roman civilization. But not others (slaves, non-citizens, although they may have benefited indirectly).
You’ll need to provide evidence of some sort that is true (least-intelligent people are having more children). Again, it probably hinges on how you define intelligence.
Hate to tell you this, but every civilization that has ever existed will eventually go through a decline period. Depending on the circumstances, this can either be a good thing or bad thing, to varying degrees. I think it highly unlikely that decline in intelligence can be attributed as the sole causal facor in such a scenario.
Again, think of the Roman Empire - decline was obviously disasterous for Romans; however, over time, new civilizations emerged. Who’s to say that without the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity would have emerged as a powerful cultural force. Likewise for the subsequent events that unfolded historically (both good and bad)?
You’ve provided little of either to convince me - try again.
Well, that’s true to a degree. The flashes of individual insight are critical, but the surrounding society has to be able to incorporate and apply this new knowlege. The Phaistos Disk is the classic example - movable type in 1700 BCE, abot 2500 years before its invention in China and 3000 years before Gutenberg, but since the writing medium at the time was heavy impractical clay and not paper, the idea had to wait.
Couldn’t it be said as easily that intelligence depends on civilization? I think that the Flynn effect might show that. Not arguing that we have necessarily a civilized society now, but civilization has had more time to refine itself for whatever goal.
And finally how can we say that somehow genetic differences have happened over such a short time scale(the time intelligence tests have been taken)?
I agree. Intelligence depends on civilization. Our brains are ‘plastic’, capable of much potential given the opportunity at an early age. From the point of a population of people, on average, this opportunity is provided by a civilised society. Look at the stats on civilised democracies such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, European countries and Australia with the higherst literacy, scientific literacy and mathematical literacy rates.
The learning environment plays a large part in development of intelligence, it’s not just nature.
higherst??? …I mean biggerest.
There’s a phenomenon I think of as the “Bill Clinton effect” that will tend to work against dysgenic breeding trends. (You can call the Jesse Jackson effect, or the Kwesi Mfume effect, if you like.)
When poor people reproduce, they don’t all have equal chances to pass on their genes. In every society that we have knowledge of, higher status (presumably higher IQ) males mate with lower status females. This mating can be licit or illicit, approved of, tolerated, or frowned on; the fact is that it goes on.
To make a broad generalization, males who are tall, good looking mesomorphs with a high verbal IQ, enjoy a significant breeding advantage over other males, especially in environments where marriage based monogamy is either weak or non existent.
If one male has more breeding opportunities than one to one pairing would provide, then another male has fewer breeding opportunities. Other characteristics being equal, higher IQ males are bound to get the greater share of these breeding opportunities. So, breeding conditions in poor communities are less dysgenic than those in middle and upper class communities, where breeding opportunities are much more restricted by law and social convention.
So… the women in upper middle class societies, swimming in what we might think of as the “genetic cream” of modernity, are actually culturally restricted to weak chinned, flabby muscled, small penised, socially awkward males with high earning power? But potentially this won’t matter as some of the more dynamic female specimens of this upper level economic cohort will vote with their ovaries, and look to some of the physically superior, more socially adept male specimens in the lower economic classes?
Thank God women’s choosiness will save us!
Of course, but that long delay wasn’t because of low intelligence in 1700 BCE and the intervening centuries. Technological advances have to advance more or less together because of that bad old pain-in-the neck, supporting logistics. Sooner or later the advances are picked up and improved upon.
It could be argued that if people back then had been smarter it wouldn’t have taken so long but that’s a “what if” and can be argued either way since nobody really knows what would have happened “if.”
The American Psychological Association just published research showing that IQ has a strong genetic component, and that ethnic groups differ on average in innate intelligence, here is the research: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
From your cite, you might want to note:
Get it?
This research was just publihed in the New York Times, showing that thanks to eugenic practices, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest innate IQ average in the world: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638
Oh man, you’ve got us over a barrel! If those Rushton and Jensen have teamed up there’s no denying the veracity of your argument.