# NEO-Eugenics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874 "2004-03-28T05:31:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/121 "2004-03-30T01:59:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Um… became very powerful? Have you ever been to Israel? They are hardly “very powerful” outside of the sense of, “America gave them billions of dollars of aid and military equipment.” Given their small population and small volume of land, Israel is a first world nation. They are at the edge of technological innovation, have the second most advanced military, etc. Of course, they do have a sizable low IQ Arab population which has been a drain on their economy. > [@](#): > > Oh, so now “intelligence” is defined as “ability to understand calculus”? The higher the IQ, the more likely one is to understand calculus. > [@](#): > > You’re almost getting it. Take the two twins with identical IQs at birth and put one in the field in China and one in a nurturing home in America with the funds to go to college. Which one will have the higher IQ? They have the same IQ, as studies show. I am talking about SES, not IQ. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/122 "2004-03-30T02:05:54Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Given their small population and small volume of land, Israel is a first world nation. I should point out at this stage that you don’t even know what a “first world” nation is, do you? > [@](#): > > They are at the edge of technological innovation, have the second most advanced military, etc. Of course, they do have a sizable low IQ Arab population which has been a drain on their economy. Yea, they did make ICQ. The fact that they are “on the edge of technological innovation” and “have the second most advanced military” (which is a debate in itself) has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are given billions of dollars and import most of it from America? > [@](#): > > The higher the IQ, the more likely one is to understand calculus. Once again, I would like to point out your fallacy of equating IQ with intelligence. > [@](#): > > They have the same IQ, as studies show. You are making the claim that a child without schooling would have the same IQ as a child with schooling? > [@](#): > > I am talking about SES, not IQ. You equated SES with IQ earlier. I’m just breaking that association, and you have been helping admirably. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/123 "2004-03-30T02:09:27Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Given their small population and small volume of land, Israel is a first world nation. Technically, so is the South Bronx. Given the fact that U.S. aid to Israel is in the order of two billion dollars a year, and has amounted to over a hundred billion dollars since 1949, I am personally unimpressed by their being a first world nation. No African nation has been the beneficiary of anywhere near that level of generosity. You have not even succeeded in providing evidence different races have different IQs; Philippe Rushton has been discredited for years. If you aren’t going to listen, why are you bothering? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/124 "2004-03-30T02:36:01Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I am here to make my case for eugenics. Sure, most may not agree with me, but as long as I make an effort, I am satisfied. Well, the effort’s made. I’m not sure how effective it was at accomplishing anything other than your own satisfaction, though. > [@](#): > > I never said that people who disagree with me have a low IQ. I believe you are just fabricating right now? I speculate though, perhaps it is just an sincere misunderstanding on your part. It was this little nugget of yours that formed the basis of my opinion of you: > [@](#): > > But, I think I know why you are all pissy, it’s because I posted credible links to university sites and such. That happens often to me: I say something politically incorrect, and the forum members are all calm and polite and smug. But then as soon as I actually post credible sources, they get all angry because I shake their world views and most people don’t want to be ever proven wrong, me neither actually, but I try to keep an open mind and be objective. So let’s deconstruct this baby: _Unproven assumption_: the respondents to this thread were “pissy”. _Unproven assumption_: pissiness can be provoked by someone posting links to unversity sites. _Unproven assumption_: the respondents to this thread care about your degree of political incorrectness. _Unproven assumption_: the respondents to this thread are angry. _Unproven assumption_: the respondents to this thread have had their world views shaken by you. _Unproven assumption_: while you strive to have an open mind and objectivity, the respondents to this thread do not. In that one paragraph, you tried playing martyr to truth. It carries an implication that others are the despise truth and the people who prmote it, i.e. they are stupid. Trouble is, this doesn’t prove your premise (eugenics is good) and only alienates your audience (anyone who doesn’t believe I’m right about eugenics being good is a troglodyte). In any case, if you want to encourage smart people to breed, the whole “eugenics” things has unfortunately been tainted by that little guy from Austria. A better way to sell it would be getting more women into engineering and technology programs, prefereably women who look good in tight black skirts, with their hair styled in that prim bun just begging for release, coupled with those spike heels that… …sorry, what were we talking about? Oh, encouraging smart people to breed. Well, you’re better off spending more money on schools and such for all the citizens and then identifying the smart people that pop up at random. That way, the smart people are identified early and can be given accelerated educations, while even the dumber people get some benefit and can learn useful skills like burger flipping or ditch digging and other Delta/Epsilon stuff. I like grey. Grey is pretty. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/125 "2004-03-30T02:44:45Z")
**Zagadka** > [@](#): > > Because racist asshats like you dismiss them offhand? [Moderator Hat ON] Do NOT call other posters “asshats” in this forum. Also, if Science Girl objects to being constantly called “honey”, “sweetcheeks” and so on I’ll ask you to stop that too. Science Girl, disagreement with Mod rulings goes in the Pit, not GD. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/126 "2004-03-30T02:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > But, I think I know why you are all pissy, it’s because I posted credible links to university sites and such. That happens often to me: I say something politically incorrect, and the forum members are all calm and polite and smug. But then as soon as I actually post credible sources, they get all angry because I shake their world views and most people don’t want to be ever proven wrong, me neither actually, but I try to keep an open mind and be objective. No where did I say people who disagree with me have low IQs. I said people are calm regarding my politically incorrect claims, but when I post sources considered to be credible, people then get very annoyed because they assumed I had no evidence to back up my claims, and then when I actually provide data that rebutts their beliefs, they get emotional. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/127 "2004-03-30T02:53:21Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > **Zagadka** > [Moderator Hat ON] > > Science Girl objects to being constantly called “honey”, “sweetcheeks” and so on I’ll ask you to stop that too. It does not offend me since I am very non-emotional, but I think name-calling/insults detract from a serious debate, so yes, I would prefer that these words not be used. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/128 "2004-03-30T03:04:03Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > No where did I say people who disagree with me have low IQs. I said people are calm regarding my politically incorrect claims, but when I post sources considered to be credible, people then get very annoyed because they assumed I had no evidence to back up my claims, and then when I actually provide data that rebutts their beliefs, they get emotional. And when people post the rebutts to your rebutts, you dismiss them because you “don’t agree” and refuse to provide one peer-reviewed study. I’m curious, though, as to your correlation between IQ and intelligence. Your own definition of “intelligence” and continuing behavior in using IQ and intelligence as synonyms raise a few questions. I do not understand how “ability to do calculus” has anything to do with “ability to comprehend socioeconomic functions,” much less have knowledge of history as recent and major as the Marshall Plan. Your argument that genetically higher IQs exist in East Asian countries, and that they are thus better, more productive, more stable, and in your own words, more moral than everyone else on the planet would lead one to assume that major philosophies, government systems, economic systems, cultural balance, economic stability and (obviously, since they are all East Asian and thus all smart) equality would follow, correct? Yet this is disturbingly obvious that this is not the case. Would you go on a limb and say that an average illiterate Chinese farmer in Xin Jiang would have an IQ 25 points higher than an average illiterate African farmer in Sudan? If this is the case, why is the Chinese farmer in the same socioeconomic position, overall? Further, how do you justify the seemingly disturbing moral trends in modern Japan, which include but are not limited to buying panties of schoolgirls for sniffing and producing art depicting machines raping aforementioned schoolgirls? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/129 "2004-03-30T03:12:58Z")
> [@Gaudere](#): > > [Moderator Hat ON] > > Do NOT call other posters “asshats” in this forum. Also, if Science Girl objects to being constantly called “honey”, “sweetcheeks” and so on I’ll ask you to stop that too. Science Girl, disagreement with Mod rulings goes in the Pit, not GD. > > [Moderator Hat OFF] Fair enough. Though to be totally level, I called racists asshats, and implied that she belongs to the group, which is technically true, as her entire argument is based on racial discrimination. Nonetheless, it shall stop. As for the other names, what can I say. Debate gets me hot. Though, never fear, I would never procreate with her. I’d hate to bring another poor unintelligent Mexican into the world. While it is true that she has never said that any of us have “low IQ,” is it fair to allow her to insult broad racial groups as being “poor, stupid, and immoral?” Even if she is stating, as she believes it, a fact, my statement of her possibly belonging to a group of racists, and calling that group of racists “a\*\*\*\*\*s” could be taken in a similar way, could it not? I mean, I don’t see the value in complaining about name calling against one group of people, but not against another… unless she would care to defend that logic. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/130 "2004-03-30T03:18:16Z")
> [@](#): > > is it fair to allow her to insult broad racial groups as being “poor, stupid, and immoral?” I am not insulting any group, I am discussing cognitive and behavioral differences between population groups as so defined by psychological research. There is a difference. My goal is not to “hurt anyone’s feelings” which is the definition of insulting. I am discussing the scientific study of human variation. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/131 "2004-03-30T03:23:02Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Why is it after all the persecution of Jews during World War 2, they quickly become the most successful ethnic group within ten years or so? Why is it that after the destruction of Germany in World War 2 and 1, Germany immediately become First world again? Why is it that after nuking Japanese, they quicky become first world again? 1: Because the richest country in the world (the USA) opened their borders to them. 2: Because the richest country in the world (the USA) gave them enormous gobs of money to not go with the USSR. 3: Because the richest country in the world (the USA) gave them enormous gobs of money to be the only friendly face in Asia. The problem with someone who only has a hammer is that everything looks like a nail. Still waiting for those peer-reviewed journal citations. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/132 "2004-03-30T03:25:40Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > How does a racist argument differ from a scientific or empirical one? The scientific argument has citations to primary research published in peer-reviewed professional journals, not mere secondary sources. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/133 "2004-03-30T03:27:16Z")
> [@Dogface](#): > > Still waiting for those peer-reviewed journal citations. Some APA stuff: American Psychological Association: [http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html](http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html) ABILITIES REQUIRED FOR SUCCESS IN SCHOOL DON’T DIFFER GREATLY FROM THOSE REQUIRED IN THE REAL WORLD General Cognitive Ability is Related to Success in Multiple Domains, According to Research Review: [http://www.apa.org/releases/success.html](http://www.apa.org/releases/success.html) I came across Harvard University article: [http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html](http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html) Evolutionary Psychology: [Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/) Regards ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/134 "2004-03-30T03:32:28Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I am not insulting any group, I am discussing cognitive and behavioral differences between population groups as so defined by psychological research. There is a difference. My goal is not to “hurt anyone’s feelings” which is the definition of insulting. I am discussing the scientific study of human variation. Oh, in that case, it was never my intention to hurt your feelings by calling racists asshats. In fact, I’d like to qualify that by calling racists illiterate asshats, which I’m sure you would not object to. In any event, you are discussing no such thing as behaviorial differences between population groups as so defined by psychological research. You are discussing how much more stupid some races are than others as defined by some random and unbacked ramblings of racists who happen to have degrees and know how to manipulate statistics so college freshmen who pride themselves on their logical emotionlessness and pretend to be psychologists accept them with blind faith and forward them all over the Internet. Instead, you are arguing with a stupid spic who has so far managed to disassociate your correlation between SES and IQ, question your definition of intelligence, pointed out your poor grasp of history and socioeconomics, etc etc, and tried very hard to wave off all other proofs as “you don’t believe them” or as “part of the Marxist NWO” - and somehow still have the presence of mind to believe that you are effectively debating a topic and “shaking people’s world” because they “can’t handle the truth.” Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/135 "2004-03-30T03:40:50Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > American Psychological Association: [http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html](http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html) Let’s see what we have here… “Intelligence test scores partially predict individual differences in school achievement, such as grade point average and number of years of education that individuals complete. In this context, the skills measured are important. Nevertheless, population levels of school achievement are not determined solely or even primarily by intelligence or any other individual-difference variable. The fact that children in Japan and Taiwan learn much more math than their peers in America, for example, can be attributed primarily to differences in culture and schooling rather than in abilities measured by intelligence tests.” “…but the pathway by which genes produce their effects is still unknown. The impact of genetic differences appears to increase with age, but it is not known why.” “Environmental factors contribute substantially to the development of intelligence, but it is not clearly understood what those factors are or how they work. Attendance at school is certainly important, for example, but it is not known what aspects of schooling are critical.” “Severe childhood malnutrition has clear negative effects,” “There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation.” “It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity, among others.” Do you even READ your “sources”? This just said that there is no sign for genetic effect, malnutrition has clear negative effects, it is not know how genes produce their effects, standardized tests do not cover “creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity,” and that test scores “partially” correlate to performance. Jesus Christ on a rubber crutch, you think this supports your “blacks are genetically stupider than whites because they score lower on IQ tests” theory? > [@](#): > > ABILITIES REQUIRED FOR SUCCESS IN SCHOOL DON’T DIFFER GREATLY FROM THOSE REQUIRED IN THE REAL WORLD Which apparently doesn’t cover history or civics. Just calculus. Evolutionary Psychology: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/) [/QUOTE] Yahoo Groups is a peer-reviewed primary source now? ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/136 "2004-03-30T03:49:26Z")
You took the passages out of context which was dishonest. I ask everyone to visit the link, what the APA says is that genetics play a role, but so does environment. Zagadka took all the environment side, but ommitted the genetic side. Regards. > [@Zagadka](#): > > Let’s see what we have here… > > “Intelligence test scores partially predict individual differences in school achievement, such as grade point average and number of years of education that individuals complete. In this context, the skills measured are important. Nevertheless, population levels of school achievement are not determined solely or even primarily by intelligence or any other individual-difference variable. The fact that children in Japan and Taiwan learn much more math than their peers in America, for example, can be attributed primarily to differences in culture and schooling rather than in abilities measured by intelligence tests.” > > “…but the pathway by which genes produce their effects is still unknown. The impact of genetic differences appears to increase with age, but it is not known why.” > > “Environmental factors contribute substantially to the development of intelligence, but it is not clearly understood what those factors are or how they work. Attendance at school is certainly important, for example, but it is not known what aspects of schooling are critical.” > > “Severe childhood malnutrition has clear negative effects,” > > “There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation.” > > “It is widely agreed that standardized tests do not sample all forms of intelligence. Obvious examples include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity, among others.” > > Do you even READ your “sources”? This just said that there is no sign for genetic effect, malnutrition has clear negative effects, it is not know how genes produce their effects, standardized tests do not cover “creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity,” and that test scores “partially” correlate to performance. > > Jesus Christ on a rubber crutch, you think this supports your “blacks are genetically stupider than whites because they score lower on IQ tests” theory? > Which apparently doesn’t cover history or civics. Just calculus. > > Evolutionary Psychology: [Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/) Yahoo Groups is a peer-reviewed primary source now? [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/137 "2004-03-30T04:02:51Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > You took the passages out of context which was dishonest. I ask everyone to visit the link, what the APA says is that genetics play a role, but so does environment. Zagadka took all the environment side, but ommitted the genetic side. lol. I copy and pasted most of the points, and some of the points that I pasted stated outright that genetics doesn’t have that large of a role, or that the role is unknown. Your much-vaunted APA resource is bunk, and I’m sure they would be flabbergasted should they know how you are using their research. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/138 "2004-03-30T04:03:58Z")
BTW, I notice how carefully you debunked each point that I did paste. You still call yourself skilled in the art of debate? You aren’t even skilled in the art of rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/139 "2004-03-30T12:53:36Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Some APA stuff: That, and the rest of what you post still does not qualify. NONE of it is a peer-reviewed professional journal. Therefore, I take your utter failure as admission that all you say is nothing but a bunch of rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![Nachtwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/edb3f5/32.png) [@Nachtwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nachtwolf)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874/140 "2004-03-30T20:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ll go invite some very smart eugenicists as well, much smarter than I, to come participate in this thread. Hi there! > [@](#): > > Oh yeah, once you get your science straightened out, you’ll have to convice us how you’re going to re-write the constitution of the US (assuming you are a US poster) to accomodate your eugenics plans. Oh, come on. There are plenty of ways to promote and practice eugenics which don’t rest on inhumane or unconstitutional actions, John. Consider voluntary eugenics, for instance; I’m healthy and intelligent, and I intend to find a similarly healthy, intelligent woman to have many children with. (In fact I’m tickled pink by the options currently available, and consequently don’t have much time to argue about eugenics online, but I’ll try to pop in and address responses my posts generate). Another great way to promote eugenic change is to make birth control easier to use and more widely available, particularly to those in the underclass. According to research shown at [The Alan Guttmacher Institute](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html), In 1994, 49% of pregnancies in the US were unplanned, with the highest rates occurring among young women, the unmarried, and low-income mothers. Only 39% of pregnancies for women below the poverty line were intended, compared to 59% of pregnancies for women earning at twice the poverty line or more. (See [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html) for a much broader picture of the issue of differential fertility.) In other words, the present decline to the genetic component to IQ is occurring in part because the underclass is having babies it doesn’t want. If we as a society are willing to shoulder the small burden of socializing contraceptives, the rewards for those on the lower end of the social spectrum would be nearly immediate - fewer expenses, > [@](#): > > I know there’s about a 1 billionth percent chance that we’ll bring her over from the Dark Side, but isn’t that chance what this community is supposed to be about? I’m not trying to pick on you here, Jon, but I’ve seen this kind of sentiment many times before, and I’d like to say that you won’t have any chance of convincing either her or me of your position unless you are willing to extend the same courtesy of open-mindedness you ask of us. Understand that I, at least, used to be in the same position you were in, but the proponderance of the evidence forced a reversal of my opinion. Don’t be too quick to dismiss opposing ideas as resulting from ignorance - I’m a physics major, but I’ve spent more time over last three years researching this issue than learning about physics. ScienceGirl is no dummy, either; does anyone else here notice how _she’s_ the one throwing all the information on the table so far? > [@](#): > > What if by selecting for intelligence, we select against physical prowess and artistic inclinations? … Have eugenetists considered these possibilities? Yes, eugenists spend much of their time discussing these possibilities. It turns out that Psychometric _g_ (that is, the distilled “essence” of IQ) correlates positively with height, general health, artistic ability, and a variety of other positive factors. So by encouraging the smarter to have more children, we would as a side effect become healthier, more creative, and so on. The only downside to being smarter is that studies find that if you are smarter, you are more prone to developing myopia (nearsightedness) and allergies. You can read more about this here: [http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm](http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm) > [@](#): > > Perhaps beacause intelligence isn’t the only thing a society needs to thrive? Absolutely! However, currently our ability to, for instance, manipulate objects with our hands is not decreasing at the genetic level. Our intelligence, unfortunately, _is_. > [@](#): > > If you believe everything you say and are satisfied with it, why call for the opinions of others? If your goal was to convince others, then you need a lot more work on your interpersonal skills. Hahaha! This is a very apt statement, Bryan. Eugenists as a group do tend to be rather snooty. I certainly hope my remarks haven’t offended anyone. > [@](#): > > That, and the rest of what you post still does not qualify. NONE of it is a peer-reviewed professional journal. Therefore, I take your utter failure as admission that all you say is nothing but a bunch of rubbish. Are you aware of what the APA is? It’s the “American Psychological Association.” Maybe I’m missing something, here - why don’t you think the APA is a credible source, Dogface? Here is an article form from Psycoloquy. Does _this_ qualify as a credible source? If not, please explain why, so that we can try to find you a source which you will credit as scientific. [http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000022/](http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000022/) \*From the regression of the W-B differences for a great many diverse tests on the g loadings of those tests, we can statistically estimate the size of the mean W-B difference on a hypothetically pure measure of g. This difference is about 1.3 standard deviations, which is equivalent to about 20 IQ points. Cultural bias has been ruled out as a cause of this difference (Jensen, 1980; 1998, pp. 360-369). … PSYCOLOQUY (ISSN 1055-0143) is sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA).\* –Mark [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-eugenics/236874.md?page=8)