[Asian-American]

http://www.neoeugenics.com/

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

So, what are your thoughts?

Regards.

[Borek]

Nothing new I am afraid. We are getting genetically weaker as a species for thousands of years, since the advent of the civilisation. Lowering inteligence is only a part of larger problem.

How many women need medical treating before they can get pregnant? What will be the proportion in the next generation? How many of your friends will be long dead if not for a medical intervence at some point in the ir lives? Or if not for a continuous medical intervence throughout their lives?

The problem exists, however, historical implications and political correctness make any serious discusion impossible, as you will be accused of fascism before any serious arguments are presented. Better don't touch.

[miaskows]

Sorry my cynical and even somehow ugly comment concerned your message:
I want to see you trying to "hit the job market" when there would be thousands of "intelligent" individuals with the absolutely same demands as yours.All your nice reasoning about civilization would immediately disappear when you would find yourself desperately fighting with them for some modest job (it has been modest before your suceeded to turn all the world to the bunch of white collared gentries) . Besides in medieval era the mob has been cruetly bitten by gentries all around the world  only because they dared to read a book. Even  in nineteen centure there were parlamentary discussions whether women to be allowed to get academic education or not.
Sure everyone would want to see nice and  polite and not moron and agressive pplz, but all sorts of kind talking ended up when the restorants are closed up because of noone wants to get the plates washing job but instead of it wants to be bisnessmen or at least scientist.
And western goverments get it possible for thousands of illegal emigrants to live and work on their territory.
Against the emigration law. They have no choice.
It is NOT my opinion . It is what you can get from every paper or TV news. The sad reality is that actually noone wants that world to be totally intelligent.

[GCT]

http://www.neoeugenics.com/

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

So, what are your thoughts?

Regards.

I think we better be careful in thinking that inteilligence is an all emcompassing advantageous trait.  I think what you may be referring to is the culture associated with intelligence...these days people would rather choose to appear dumb (especially in the academic sense) in exchange of a good social life.  

You're right in saying that most of them don't choose to practice their intelligence to the full extent.  However, I think that the majority are quite intelligent as far as their survival instinct goes.  As far as intelligence goes though, I believe that truly intelligent people still manage to survive and reproduce (in relevance to fluid intelligence) however we are now including the "not so smart" people in the gene pool

and I suppose that this would serve to decrease the intelligence factor in some sense

[Dude]

View it from a thermodynamic perspective.  Intelligence is similar to energy, nature tends to use as little as possible.  Procreation moves to increase the collective entropy of the surface population.  

I fully agree with GCT.  In the US, money = intelligence, or our memorization-based definition of it.  There are plenty of studies correlating SAT/ACT/GRE/IQ scores with family income.  

[miaskows]

The greatest achivement of the american society now days is that carefull "not to hart somebody" non extremist way of talking and behaviour. I really enjoyed to read your answers.

[Mitch]

Asian-American: You take specious reasoning to a whole new level there.

[Borek]

Asian-American: You take specious reasoning to a whole new level there.

As I stated before - nothing new here. I have read paper with similar reasoning back in nineties. It was written by somone with Ph.D. in anthropology. Main conclusions: civilisation allows to diversify gene pool, yet the Joe Average is genetically weaker then his grandpa. Birth control adds new dimension to the process - those whealthy have less children then the rest.

[savoy7]

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

I have just a couple of comments.  

1) How does one measure intelligence?
Harvard's Howard Gardner wrote about multiple intelligences.  He started out with seven and now its up to nine.  His original seven intelligences are:  Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Bodily Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal.  My comment is that I have met many people in my life that lack logical-mathematical intelligence, but have other areas where they are superior.  

2) Position in life does not reflect intelligence.  I have had many bright students that performed poorly in my courses not from lack of intelligence, but from the lack of motivation.  I feel that motivation and hard work are more important than intelligence for success.

3)  From the original comment, "At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children." it could be implied that the original homo sapiens were more intelligent than we are now.  At what point was the human race at the highest level of intelligence?  How does one quantify that?  What statistic does one use?  Literacy rate?  I do believe that a larger % of society is literate than in the past.  Post-secondary education?  I do believe that more people attend post-secondary institutes than in the past.  

This comment reminds me of the extintion of the .400 batting ave myth.  The idea that baseball players were better in the past than now.  I feel that the late Stephen Jay Gould ideas he wrote about in Full House would match up with this discussion.  I would definitely read it if you are interested in this topic.

In conclusion, my fear of the future is that logic is being displaced by myth & emotion(much like the dark ages) and that we are less motivated as a whole than we were in the past.  As far as the eugenic side of it, one can have a map to a destination that doesn't mean they are going to get there.  One has to have the desire and the intestinal fortitude to make it there.

[GCT]

I have just a couple of comments.  

1) How does one measure intelligence?
Harvard's Howard Gardner wrote about multiple intelligences.  He started out with seven and now its up to nine.  His original seven intelligences are:  Linguistic, Logical-mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Bodily Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal.  My comment is that I have met many people in my life that lack logical-mathematical intelligence, but have other areas where they are superior.  

yeah, I somewhat agree with his definition the most.  Although, I am not quite sure what his position is on the topic of fluid intelligence, or rather that of genetic intelligence.  He seems to emphasize the environment.

Sometimes I find myself thinking about whether the environment can actually contribute to fluid intelligence, that is whether it would be more useful and accurate to attribute one's exceptional "intelligence" or talent to the environment.  Or at least account for this factor as largely responsible, even over what one might conceive as genetic intelligence.

2) Position in life does not reflect intelligence.  I have had many bright students that performed poorly in my courses not from lack of intelligence, but from the lack of motivation.  I feel that motivation and hard work are more important than intelligence for success.

Well, on the contrary, from a previous psych course, IQ does correlate very well with one's position in life, I'll try finding the article if you request.  From my experience I see more motivation and hard work from those who are not so gifted.

[savoy7]

GCT has some good points.

Quote:
2) Position in life does not reflect intelligence.  I have had many bright students that performed poorly in my courses not from lack of intelligence, but from the lack of motivation.  I feel that motivation and hard work are more important than intelligence for success.
 

Well, on the contrary, from a previous psych course, IQ does correlate very well with one's position in life, I'll try finding the article if you request.  From my experience I see more motivation and hard work from those who are not so gifted.

End quote.

I guess I was referring to position in society.  Galileo was brilliant.  It is rare to have 2 original ideas.  Most of us just alter someone else's ideas.  In his society, he was put under house arrest.  

Society dictates what intelligence it values.  How much does academia pay?  How much does entertainment pay (sports and music)?  I don't know too many childern with Hawkins on their walls, but they might have T. Owens.  

That is what I meant by position in life.  

A side note:  papers have been written on the validity of IQ tests.  In psych, the p values necessary to publish are far less than hard sciences (too many variables).

[Borek]

Position in life does not reflect intelligence.  I have had many bright students that performed poorly in my courses not from lack of intelligence, but from the lack of motivation.  I feel that motivation and hard work are more important than intelligence for success.

Google marshmallow test.

[GCT]

GCT has some good points.

Quote:
2) Position in life does not reflect intelligence.  I have had many bright students that performed poorly in my courses not from lack of intelligence, but from the lack of motivation.  I feel that motivation and hard work are more important than intelligence for success.
 

Well, on the contrary, from a previous psych course, IQ does correlate very well with one's position in life, I'll try finding the article if you request.  From my experience I see more motivation and hard work from those who are not so gifted.

End quote.

I guess I was referring to position in society.  Galileo was brilliant.  It is rare to have 2 original ideas.  Most of us just alter someone else's ideas.  In his society, he was put under house arrest.  

Society dictates what intelligence it values.  How much does academia pay?  How much does entertainment pay (sports and music)?  I don't know too many childern with Hawkins on their walls, but they might have T. Owens.  

That is what I meant by position in life.  

A side note:  papers have been written on the validity of IQ tests.  In psych, the p values necessary to publish are far less than hard sciences (too many variables).

Yeah, I understand what you're getting at.  My point however, was that IQ does correlate with position and success in life...and we don't need to look at either extremes.  That is, an individual with low IQ can still succeed, agreed, motivation is extremely important, especially in relevance to the diligence which knits a particular group or society together.  Showoffs are more likely to be left out.

Also, an individual with a gifted IQ does not necessarily have to be T. Owens to be accounted as having considerable degree of sucess.

It was a Scientific American article, relating IQ to sucess.  Especially in relevance and comparison to juvenile tendencies, that is kids with high IQ tend to stay out of trouble and later on obtain high paying, prestigious occupations, get married, and achieve stability. High IQ correlates with success, this claim does not imply that those with low IQ have no hope.

[Blueshawk]

My position may be a little harsh...Stupid breeds Stupid.

I have met too many people that are just Stupid..plain as day.
The they meet someone who is just as stupid...thus stupid breeds stupid.

I've seen it with my neighbors....It is sad to see valuable resources wasted.

It is just some of the reasons that certain people get elected to certain positions...Stupid people are naive and do not know what is good for the whole...so they vote like other people vote..without thinking long term.  They think their personal views are the views that everyone should take in...lets be a little more open minded than that please!

People need to think long term...If you do not think 10-20 years or even 50 down the line, then you are not thinking right.

sorry if anyone may be offended..

[Donaldson Tan]

bluehawk: your stupid neighbours must have really irritated you.

if humans are indeed becoming less intelligent due to genetic reasons, then it's time for the intelligent people to have more kids. university graduates with at least 2nd upper honours should be given tax incentive to have more kids, whereas the lowly educated people should be given tax incentive to not have kids.

level of education is the most convenient mean of measuring intelligence. there are other traits of intelligence that we would like to propagate into our next generation, other than just raw intelligence. it includes the elements of hardworking, good attitude and strong morals. All these will be reflected in the kids' upbringing.

however, wouldn't it be a joke to not have stupid people around? If there is no stupid people, how can your intelligence be contrasted? If there is no stupid people, who can the more intelligent lots triumph and rule over? In the end, we cannot eliminate stupidity in our genes because of there is a need to impose hiearchy in our social system. If stupidity is really the problem, then the least intelligent people would be the 'stupid class' of the most intelligent human race. Stupidity - a relative concept - will not be eliminated.

this discussion is futile, don't you all think so?