Lots of Intelligent people on this board

[Angel von Himmel]

I don't think there is a way to breed bad genes out of people ... the majority of them are lying dormant in healthy normal people anyways and all it takes is a certain mixture of genes to allow the bad passive traits to show. So, you are always going to have healthy notmal children carrying bad passive genes to eventually pass on to their own offspring and their offspring until one of their offspring catches it.

And that "survival of the fittest" crap is BS ... the only people who I hear shouting that out are those who have weak genes and need to be agressive to make up for their own frigid lack of desirability. Normal healthy people don't need to fight against each other for survival because they are accepting each other and working as a group; therefore meaning they will all profit in some way.

[Angel von Himmel]

And another thing, retarted and genetically disabled children have had children that were totally normal and without any bad traits, atleast those that were able to reproduce somehow. It is sort of hard to reproduce when you don't look like a person someone can get close to or are not familiar with flirting or mating rituals. That's typically why they arn't reproducing, survivability is not the total issue here.

[Waddlesworth]

I definitely think that my words were totally taken out of context.

I said parents should have the option of putting a child down if it is born with a mental dissorder. Obviously there would be rules and regulations, etc..., but i don't think that it is a bad idea. I'm sure that there have been many families that have had to live a lifetime with a person with some sort of major dissorder and have thought "man, if only I could have gotten another chance".

This whole "aryan gene pool" thing that some ENFp wrote up there has nothing to do with what i was saying, and by calling the Greeks "noble" I meant they lived in a very advanced society which recognized the importance a person's vital well being (that is, being "fit" to live self sufficiently).

As for genetic mutations, like i said they are valuable. I think there is some sort of natural equilibrium that allows more random mutations to pool in a society(due to altruism, social welfare, etc..), making the society ready for the inevitable random disaster to come its way. With all of the random mutations there is a greater likelihood that the society will be able to develop to fit the environment.

[taz]

My IQ score is about average of 94. My act test score is 16 or 20. But I have never been good at tests even in math I never gotten a math test for this year higher than a D-. Still my math grade for 2nd semester is a B-.

[science as magic]

Yeah, the good days of killing "retarded" people in concentration camps to save the arian gene pool. You people make me sick - but perhaps it's just my type...

Agreed. I should've said it sooner.

[Jimbean]

I am going to put my opinion on this thread, let’s see how people react to it.

In the information age, bad genes will be eliminated from the populace one way or another—through gene mutations and cloning or people like me who will think about these things and will only marry a woman that has good genes. The world is a competitive place, the more a person knows, the more competitive that person becomes. More and more people are looking for “good genes only” potential mates.

No parent wants to have children who are retarded, and the more competitive the world becomes the more pressure people will feel from this. Combine that with advancing technology, and you will have “designer babies,” possibly within this century. So, in the future, bad genes will probably be eliminated.

[science as magic]

Why not just physically alter the genes without destroying the carrier and avoid the moral dilemma?

[Jimbean]

Why not just physically alter the genes without destroying the carrier and avoid the moral dilemma?

I do not understand, can you please expand on this....

[Angel von Himmel]

I think what pedro is considering is the thought that if technology should be able to alter the genes on yet-to-be-born infants, then it should be able to alter the genes on people who are already born.

I think both are impossible short of actually assembling a robot that was 100% human, we'd have to remake ourselves as a species out of better quality material first.

[science as magic]

I think it will be possible with nanobots.

[diamond]

I just re read my post . . . I wasn't trying to come off as if I condone mental retardation bashing and survival of the fittest arugments. Sorry if I offended anybody.

Yes that stuff is bullshit, but it is a free country, people can say what they want . . . it's up to others to challenge crap.

@Excaliburgirl: I wasn't trying to invite more inflammatory statements, just more controversy,

[Waddlesworth]

Well I think there is a hint at avoiding the subject as well. I mean, no one here said anything bashing about retardation. We all know mentally retarded people can't function normally, ever. We also all know how much of a disaster it can be for some families... but it can also be a blessing, helping people open their eyes and their hearts.

But the possible "options", I feel, shouldn't be so taboo. We're all mature people, and its an argument with no right answer. Perfectly healthy babies are aborted all of the time. I often notice that alot of the pro-choicers are some of the first people to scorn a person that feels that the "options" I suggested are potentially beneficial for the healthy and financially secure development of a family. Calling the other side "BS" and automatically accusing them of being somehow nazi or something, now that's BS.

But really, in the wild only the fit survive. What's fit? depends on the scenery. In society its very different. but look at the bottoms of my other posts, I think that there is a good idea in that.

[XcaliburGirl]

@Excaliburgirl: I wasn't trying to invite more inflammatory statements, just more controversy,

Yeah, I know, I was just in a weird, pugnacious mood. So I thought I'd really lay it on, more than I normally would anyway. I don't usually get into moral/ethical arguments because all the grey areas make my head spin.

[Kristiina]

Calling the other side "BS" and automatically accusing them of being somehow nazi or something, now that's BS.

Well said!

But really, in the wild only the fit survive. What's fit? depends on the scenery. In society its very different. but look at the bottoms of my other posts, I think that there is a good idea in that.

Times have changed. It's not about being healthy, strong and fast anymore, although people admire you if you're good at sports... "healthy" doesn't mean eating healthfood and doing joga. It means that you breath on your own and are able to move around. In medieval Europe 1/3 to 1/4 of all infants died. And half of the survived kids didn't see their 5th birthday. That was natural selection then. Now there are new criterias - being smart and cute/pretty. "Fit" people find a match sooner, but other people also find companions. And what's even more important... Almost everyone survives! (If not on their own, then at the expense of the stronger people)

And I don't want to create "perfect people" who all have the same genes. That would not be good. Natural diversity is very important. People are full of mutations. I just think there are some mutations that should not be allowed. We already don't allow genes that make the person a criminal(agressive and selfish). Criminals hurt others of their own generation. They end up in the jail or the electric chair. Now we should stop allowing genes that hurt the people of the next generation by making them weaker.
Sorry, can't explain it much better. Never been good at explaining.

I didn't want to offend anyone but then again - I never do. My opinions are often a bit harsh. It's just that the world has changed so much and people still pretend everything is ok.

[science as magic]

But really, in the wild only the fit survive.

Does that mean only the fit SHOULD survive? Why?

[Angel von Himmel]

Normally when people say they they mean whoever can run over the next person in line the fastest.

[Waddlesworth]

Does that mean only the fit SHOULD survive? Why?

Well that's all subjective. but what "should be" is always what actually IS. you know what I mean? doesn't have anything to do being nice or being mean, all it has to do with is whether you've got what it takes or not to survive in your environment.

[science as magic]

They do as they are surviving if you want to take the extreme literalist viewpoint.

My problem with it (aside from the moral arguement) is that you can't apply a teleological and naturalist arguement together. They just don't work together.

[diamond]

Well I think there is a hint at avoiding the subject as well. I mean, no one here said anything bashing about retardation. We all know mentally retarded people can't function normally, ever. We also all know how much of a disaster it can be for some families... but it can also be a blessing, helping people open their eyes and their hearts.

But the possible "options", I feel, shouldn't be so taboo. We're all mature people, and its an argument with no right answer. Perfectly healthy babies are aborted all of the time. I often notice that alot of the pro-choicers are some of the first people to scorn a person that feels that the "options" I suggested are potentially beneficial for the healthy and financially secure development of a family. Calling the other side "BS" and automatically accusing them of being somehow nazi or something, now that's BS.

But really, in the wild only the fit survive. What's fit? depends on the scenery. In society its very different. but look at the bottoms of my other posts, I think that there is a good idea in that.

All good points, I think.

But trying to prevent mentally retarded people from being born ain't gonna happen. If for no other reason than sometimes it is problems with the actual birthing process that results in mental retardation.

I did feel that people were bashing the mentally retarded, sorry but I really did see that either directly or by implication.

Evolutionary psychology, BTW, explains very well the concepts of altruism and inclusive fitness and these concepts in turn de-bunk the whole survival of the fittest type of argument. If I can find a link I will.

As far as the anti-abortion/pro-choice controversy, there's unacceptable compromises on both sides of that argument. It's a good symbol for the nature of our responsibilities as human beings, anyway.

[abburdlen]

Damn I stop coming around for a few weeks and almost missed the real fun conversations!

Even if the idea of preventing "undesirables" from breeding doesn't strike you as questionable in a moral sense, think of how short sighted it is biologically speaking.

as Waddles wrote fitness depends on the scenery. Look at Sickle Cell Anemia. If you get 2 copies of the gene your cosiderable less fit, however folks carrying a single copy of the gene are more resistant to malaria.
From a genetic stand point diversity is good or rather it is robust. Intelligence may be an important trait in our society (and from a procreatonal viewpoint that isn't a given) but let's be bright enough to acknowledge things likely remain this way.


And to return to the orignal discussion I recall my SAT in the lower 1400 range and 20 some years ago taking an IQ test and scoring 140. I never considered myself exceptionally smart, just a good test taker.


Blaze here's a great article dealing with altrusim
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sigm...d04_index.html

[Creepy-]

I do not discuss my IQ score with people so I will just say that my IQ is above 170(s.d. 16) : I have not taken the sat yet... intelligence is not handed out to children as they are born, so the whole good gene bad gene argument is invalid to a certain extent: intelligence, to a large extent is determined more by the environmental factors the child is exposed to at the early years of their life, rather then who there parents were; at the moment, there is no way to ensure that your child is going to be a genius or to be mentally retarded.

[Creepy-]

Thats me...

[abburdlen]

at the moment, there is no way to ensure that your child is going to be a genius or to be mentally retarded.

No, you can guarantee yourself a retarded child in countless number of ways. Having a genius as a child is a much tougher bet, but I'll still challellge your statement that intelligence is more of a enviromental function than genetic. Enrichment does help but it only gets you so far. Much in the same way with body type. If your parents are Inuit no matter how much you train, a novice Kenyan runner is going to beat you in a marathon.

If it was true that enviromental factors were most important in determining "intelligence" then twins raised in different households wouldn't have similar intelligence scores but thats exactly what you see.
Tall parents tend to have tall kids. Hairy parents tend to have hairy kids. Why is it not obvious smart parents have smart kids?

But my original point is intelligence isn't the be-all-end-all trait no matter where it comes from. My hope for my daughters is that they continue to be healthy and happy. I don't give a crap if they get into Mensa.

[Creepy-]

If it was true that enviromental factors were most important in determining "intelligence" then twins raised in different households wouldn't have similar intelligence scores but thats exactly what you see.
Tall parents tend to have tall kids. Hairy parents tend to have hairy kids. Why is it not obvious smart parents have smart kids?

[Creepy-]

If it was true that enviromental factors were most important in determining "intelligence" then twins raised in different households wouldn't have similar intelligence scores but thats exactly what you see.
Tall parents tend to have tall kids. Hairy parents tend to have hairy kids. Why is it not obvious smart parents have smart kids?

This reminds me of the genius sperm bank, who thought they could make more inteligent children by having men who are at the genius leval to donate their sperm: do you really think that all the children were at the genius leval?
No, some that i know of are more intelligent then the adverage person; but having two genius parnets does not ensure that the child will be a genius; it is much more complex then what you make it sound: here are some of the things which causes intelligence to vary *

Infant malnutrition (-ve)
*

Birth weight
*

Birth order
*

Height
*

Number of siblings (-ve)
*

Number of years in school
*

Social group of parental home
*

Father's profession
*

Father's economic status
*

Degree of parental rigidity (-ve)
*

Parental ambition
*

Mother's education
*

Average TV viewing (-ve)
*

Average book-reading
*

Self-confidence according to attitude scale measurement
*

Age (negative relationship, applies only in adulthood)
*

Degree of authority in parental home (-ve)
*

Criminality (-ve)
*

Alcoholism (-ve)
*

Mental disease (-ve)
*

Emotional adaptation
I do know the statistics, but there is not one thing which fully detemins intellligence: no ofense, but mensa is a joke and all those other high IQ societies, which are full of those poeple who think they are smart...

[science as magic]

no ofense, but mensa is a joke and all those other high IQ societies, which are full of those poeple who think they are smart...

Agreed. In addition to what you mentioned above there is the inbreeding of highly intelligent people. Look at the prevalence of autism in places like Silicon Valley etc.

[Creepy-]

What do you think is more important the EQ(emotional intelligence) or the IQ?

[science as magic]

I dunno... Eq sounds kind of stupid the way it is framed but it is obviously important no matter what terminology it lies in. Somehow I think neither is really important but something else that is always just beyond our grasp is.

[stefana]

//

[abburdlen]

but having two genius parnets does not ensure that the child will be a genius; it is much more complex then what you make it sound

I do know the statistics, but there is not one thing which fully detemins intellligence:

I'm not saying "intelligence" based solely on genetics. I agree enviroment plays an important part. What I'm arguing with is your earlier statement that "the whole good gene bad gene argument is invalid to a certain extent". Part of the problem is defining what the hell intelligence is but that is a discussion for another thread (intelligence is like pornography, tough to give a good definition but I know it when I see it). Whatever "intelligence" is it is certainly not a controlled by a single gene but more likely many many many genes that are express differently depending on many factors including enviroment ones.
The point I orginally was arguing with was the inane idea that the "mentally disadvantaged" were polluting the gene pool. That's a stupid and dangerous idea but that doesn't mean intelligence has nothing to do with heridity.

no ofense, but mensa is a joke and all those other high IQ societies, which are full of those poeple who think they are smart...

I don't take offense. I'd never join any organization that would have me as a member.

As for the question of which is more important EQ or IQ? Important for what? Again if on the birth of children, three fairy godmothers appeared to bestow wishes upon them I'd hope they'd give them health, happiness and barring some curse that they'd die after pricking a finger- maybe intelligence or beauty or athletism or hell who knows as long as they're healthy and happy then I'm pleased.

[The Exception]

Probably not the best choice of threads for a first post, but oh well:

I'm an ENTP. SAT was 1420, 800 verbal and 620 math. I didn't finish the math section - used to always make simple math errors (addition, subtraction, multiplication) and spend all my time checking to see why the answers turned out wrong.

--> Well you beat me. My composite was 1230: 710 math, 520 verbal but that was in 1992 before the SAT was renormed. I've always done better in math than English. Not sure if this is an INTj thing or not.

I've only taken a couple of those online IQ tests, I came out around 130-135 I think.

--> I wouldn't rely too much on online IQ tests to measure your IQ. Best to take a real one if you have the money and resources.

BTW, I scored 132 on the Mensa test and 126 on an IQ test in the 7th grade. I'm smart but I'm no means a genius.



The SAT, AP and other standardized tests are totally biased towards intuitives IMO.

--> Strongly agree.

In retrospect I feel bad for all the sensory types who worked so hard in school to get perfect grades and then struggled with the tests, while I never did any homework and always aced the tests I sometimes think I could get a pretty decent score on any standardized test, even if I knew nothing of the subject.

--> I always did homework but not didn't always put in a full effort. This was true when I was younger- my test scores were always better than my homework scores. In high school I took homework more seriously because I wanted to get into a good college and have a high GPA.

Laura
INTj until accused of lying on the test

[false]

On IQ test I answered all "A" in one minute and I scored 160 hehehe

[false]

Think of that: 160 in one minute! I am freakin` genius! heheh

[false]

In my IQ test the time was very important factor

[Rocky]

On IQ test I answered all "A" in one minute and I scored 160 hehehe

You are a genius! I should do that next time .

[MysticSonic]

Is that the test from www.iqtest.com?

[false]

It was test at my school

[Creepy-]

Try taking the Nemesis Test, and I doubt that you will score anywhere near what you did on cheated test; http://paulcooijmans.lunarpages.com/...web/tests/nem/ you can find it there, it does cost money for your test to be scored though.