# Reverse Darwinism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2013, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207 "2013-10-14T12:04:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/81 "2013-10-22T14:48:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > To be fair they’ve certainly tried; the Right has opposed public schools for as long as I can remember. Exactly what percent of “the right” opposes public schooling? ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/82 "2013-10-22T20:13:20Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > But the 1% and the Right are in no way the same thing. See this [Gallup](http://www.gallup.com/poll/151310/u.s.-republican-not-conservative.aspx) study, which found that the 1% were slightly more Republican, but no more conservative, than the 99%. The 1% is apolitical, neither right nor left. They just own the political and economic structures around the world. In the US, their bought-and-paid-for Red and Blue Punch and Judys provide the illusion of some political choice among the 99% as to the best way to increase their upward mobility. What a laugh. Upward mobility? The 1% have no need of it. They “vote” against it with their money. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/83 "2013-10-22T20:27:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Exactly what percent of “the right” opposes public schooling? What percent, I couldn’t tell you – probably a minority – but the idea is definitely there. It’s a big part of the “school vouchers” movement. A lot of right-wingers really do not like public education and would vote to destroy it. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/84 "2013-10-22T21:24:25Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Ironically, Professor James Flynn, who identified a rise in IQ scores through the 20th century (“the Flynn Effect”), [has now expressed concerns about this trend](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313)(which is seen in most Western countries). Kudos to Professor Flynn, for discovering that the population is getting smarter over time, not dumber, as these ‘reverse darwinian’ idiots were expecting. A brickbat to Professor Flynn for disregarding his own research, and spouting nonsense about how “New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies.” _Could_, not _will_; hasn’t this guy even heard of the Flynn Effect? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/85 "2013-10-22T22:07:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Exactly what percent of “the right” opposes public schooling? Pretty much all of it, given that they oppose public _anything._ These are the people who want to tear down all of the government except law enforcement, the military and the spy agencies. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/86 "2013-10-23T01:09:18Z")
Human Action writes: \> 34% of the population has a college degree. No: [http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf) I’m not going to be as picky as I could be. “The population” would include all children, who of course don’t have college degrees. I presume you mean everyone over the age of 25. It’s 28%, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/87 "2013-10-23T01:49:55Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > The 1% is apolitical, neither right nor left. They just own the political and economic structures around the world. In the US, their bought-and-paid-for Red and Blue Punch and Judys provide the illusion of some political choice among the 99% as to the best way to increase their upward mobility. What a laugh. > Upward mobility? The 1% have no need of it. They “vote” against it with their money. Aloha Uh huh. And this cabal decided to “limit good education and the ability to think critically to their own and keep the 99% dumbed down and reproducing to provide personnel for domestic and military service”, while also setting up a public education system and widespread college educations. They sure are bad at the sinister goals you assign them. And how does this work, exactly? When a guy gets drafted in the second round of the NBA draft, or a business owner’s income creeps above $400,000, do they get a packet in the mail outlining The Plan? > [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > Human Action writes: > > \> 34% of the population has a college degree. > > No: > > [http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf) > > I’m not going to be as picky as I could be. “The population” would include all children, who of course don’t have college degrees. I presume you mean everyone over the age of 25. It’s 28%, actually. Ok. I didn’t invent the figure, I got it from [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_in_the_United_States) But, 28%, 34%, makes no difference: it’s a lot higher than 1%. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/88 "2013-10-23T01:56:46Z")
I think I found the discrepancy: were you using Table 1, heading “Bachelor’s degree or more”, at 27.9%? If so, that neglects the 7.4% (of the adult population, yes) that holds associate’s degree, which brings it to 35.3%. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/89 "2013-10-23T02:54:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Pretty much all of it… Please provide a cite to back that up or withdraw the claim. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/90 "2013-10-23T03:19:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Please provide a cite to back that up or withdraw the claim. Why don’t you produce a cite for your claim that they don’t oppose public works of all kinds? We just had a government shutdown by these people (which serves as a cite by itself). You’re trying to argue that water isn’t wet. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/91 "2013-10-23T03:22:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why don’t you produce a cite for your claim that they don’t oppose public works of all kinds? We just had a government shutdown by these people (which serves as a cite by itself). You’re trying to argue that water isn’t wet. Even the more conservative right-wingers want education to be devolved to the local level. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/92 "2013-10-23T04:08:08Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Even the more conservative right-wingers want education to be devolved to the local level. The Right as it has made clear for decades wants virtually everything to be privatized and for profit, from education to prisons. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/93 "2013-10-23T13:40:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why don’t you produce a cite for your claim that they don’t oppose public works of all kinds? Because I never made that claim, that’s why. > [@](#): > > We just had a government shutdown by these people (which serves as a cite by itself). You’re trying to argue that water isn’t wet. IOW, you don’t have a cite because you just made it up. I thought so. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/94 "2013-10-23T13:57:42Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Uh huh. And this cabal decided to “limit good education and the ability to think critically to their own and keep the 99% dumbed down and reproducing to provide personnel for domestic and military service”, while also setting up a public education system and widespread college educations. They sure are bad at the sinister goals you assign them. And how does this work, exactly? When a guy gets drafted in the second round of the NBA draft, or a business owner’s income creeps above $400,000, do they get a packet in the mail outlining The Plan? First of all, these folks are not the 1%; they are the 5%. [us income distribution - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=us+income+distribution&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PcFnUouPJceViALCxoGIDA&ved=0CFIQsAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=vA_qSNHUhLYCJM%3A%3BwIrZF6Wkg-8-1M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fa%252Faa%252FDistribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FHousehold_income_in_the_United_States%3B3742%3B2510)(give it time to fully load). The real owners are the .1%. [http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0](http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0) we see that the top .1% first came into being in 1980. It was then they broke away from the 5% and the 1% as a “loose affiliation of … billionaires” unto themselves. Me? I’m a 99.9%er. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/95 "2013-10-23T14:31:00Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > First of all, these folks are not the 1%; they are the 5%. [us income distribution - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=us+income+distribution&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PcFnUouPJceViALCxoGIDA&ved=0CFIQsAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=vA_qSNHUhLYCJM%3A%3BwIrZF6Wkg-8-1M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fa%252Faa%252FDistribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FHousehold_income_in_the_United_States%3B3742%3B2510)(give it time to fully load). Per [this:](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/) > [@](#): > > Here is how the top earners break down: Top 1%: incomes above $394,000 in 2012; Top 5%: incomes between $161,000 and $394,000; Top 10%: incomes between $114,000 and $161,000. So, that NBA player and that businessman **are** in the top 1%. > [@jsutter](#): > > The real owners are the .1%. [http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0](http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0) we see that the top .1% first came into being in 1980. It was then they broke away from the 5% and the 1% as a “loose affiliation of … billionaires” unto themselves. > > Me? I’m a 99.9%er. > Aloha And yet, you consistently use the term “1%”. Is there one table in particular that you’re referring to? None of those have entries for Top .1% until 2001. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/96 "2013-10-23T14:50:33Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why don’t you produce a cite for your claim that they don’t oppose public works of all kinds? We just had a government shutdown by these people (which serves as a cite by itself). You’re trying to argue that water isn’t wet. No one has claimed that “they” don’t oppose public works of all kinds, so we start with a straw man. The actual reference was to public schools. I live in a Republican district surrounded by Republican districts and I have never seen any movement, motion, or stray voiced thought by anyone that we should close down public schools and move to entirely privatized education. So we can move from “straw man” to “wierd conspiracy nonsense.” The government shutdown was created by a rather small group of people on the fringes of the Right who used political maneuvering effectively to scare Boehner into allowing the shutdown when a majority of Republican Representatives were willing to avoid the shutdown. Your claim regarding “those people” is rather like claims that “Jews” control the economy or news media. It is a latent conspiracy theory that is based on personal vitriol unsupported by, (actually, contradicted by), facts. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/97 "2013-10-23T16:30:11Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Per … > And yet, you consistently use the term “1%”. This is probably a difficult concept for you but I changed my mind after doing some research. > [@](#): > > Is there one table in particular that you’re referring to? None of those have entries for Top .1% until 2001. Shakes head in wonder. :smack: That’s my point. Shakes head in disbelief. Aloha ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/98 "2013-10-23T16:45:26Z")
> [@jsutter](#): > > This is probably a difficult concept for you but I changed my mind after doing some research. You’re upset that I can’t read your mind? > [@jsutter](#): > > Shakes head in wonder. :smack: > > That’s my point. Shakes head in disbelief. > Aloha How’s that? Obviously there were people in the top 0.1 percentile for income before 2001. There’s a top 0.1% for everything that can be measured. But if the data you linked to only separates out the top 0.1% starting in 2001, I was wondering what the source was for your claim that the income of the top 0.1% began to diverge sharply from the top 1% starting in 1980. Without data from 1980-present, how can I determine if you are correct or not? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/99 "2013-10-23T17:09:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Is there one table in particular that you’re referring to? None of those have entries for Top .1% until 2001. Focus on the top 10% or even top 1% does misplace emphasis. In 2011 the top 0.1% earned about 10% of U.S. income. The top 0.01% earned about 5%. [I linked to a graph showing this before](http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8369/8494939965_1956d5262d.jpg) and commented: This may help explain some of the right-wingers’ confusions. Their sentiment is to defend hard-working lawyers who may be making only a million dollars or so per year. “Left-wing” antipathy isn’t directed against hard-working lawyers so much as against the egregious inherited wealth of the Koch brothers and Walton siblings. ---
**Author:** ![jsutter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jsutter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsutter)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207/100 "2013-10-23T17:11:37Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > … > How’s that? Obviously there were people in the top 0.1 percentile for income before 2001. There’s a top 0.1% for everything that can be measured. But if the data you linked to only separates out the top 0.1% starting in 2001, I was wondering what the source was for your claim that the income of the top 0.1% began to diverge sharply from the top 1% starting in 1980. Without data from 1980-present, how can I determine if you are correct or not? Perhaps someone else here can explain it to you. I’m done. Aloha ed perhaps **septimus** has [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reverse-darwinism/671207.md?page=6)