Intelligence, Eugenics, Wealth, and Poverty

[djAdvocate]

fascinating video.

if you have the chance, watch it, and comment:

[Virgil Showlion]

He's presenting a lot of widely disputed claims and theories as fact. His overall thesis seems to be that intelligence isn't a hereditary trait, but his presentation is all over the map.

I do like the part where he says that high IQ being characterized by "...the ability to treat the hypothetical seriously and manipulate it in our minds."   I think billisonboard will like that part too.

What do you find so fascinating about the video?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Yeah, yeah- we're all stupid. Too stupid to let smart people tell us what to do.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 4, 2016 18:58:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He's presenting a lot of widely disputed claims and theories as fact. His overall thesis seems to be that intelligence isn't a hereditary trait, but his presentation is all over the map.

I do like the part where he says that high IQ being characterized by "...the ability to treat the hypothetical seriously and manipulate it in our minds."   I think billisonboard will like that part too.

What do you find so fascinating about the video?

that is not an easy question to answer, because there is little that i don't find fascinating about it.

i think the thesis is interesting.  i took the liberty of bolding it in your response to save you the next obvious question.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 10, 2016 17:18:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 4, 2016 18:58:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He's presenting a lot of widely disputed claims and theories as fact. His overall thesis seems to be that intelligence isn't a hereditary trait, but his presentation is all over the map.

I do like the part where he says that high IQ being characterized by "...the ability to treat the hypothetical seriously and manipulate it in our minds."   I think billisonboard will like that part too.

What do you find so fascinating about the video?

that is not an easy question to answer, because there is little that i don't find fascinating about it.

i think the thesis is interesting.  i took the liberty of bolding it in your response to save you the next obvious question.

It's an ill-posed question. He tries to present intelligence as a linear spectrum quantified by IQ, but fails, most notably because the notion of a "universal" IQ is an anachronism. We've long since discovered that intelligence is more like a collection of diverse talents, gifts, skills, and abilities than a general quality that can be associated with a number.

The most closely related question that isn't ill-posed would be "Do children generally inherit a heightened capacity for specific talents, gifts, skills, and abilities from their parents?"  If memory serves, the answer to this question generally is "no", but there are exceptions.

[Deleted]

There are nurture and nature components to intelligence, twin studies actually suggest that biology is more important than environment, but the fact that general intelligence has been on the rise is a factor in favor of environment. Like most of the nurture nature debate I'm sure it is both a combination, and likely to continue to be debated ...

[Deleted]

It's got electrolytes, what plants crave.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 10, 2016 18:47:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 10, 2016 17:18:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is not an easy question to answer, because there is little that i don't find fascinating about it.

i think the thesis is interesting.  i took the liberty of bolding it in your response to save you the next obvious question.

It's an ill-posed question. He tries to present intelligence as a linear spectrum quantified by IQ, but fails, most notably because the notion of a "universal" IQ is an anachronism. We've long since discovered that intelligence is more like a collection of diverse talents, gifts, skills, and abilities than a general quality that can be associated with a number.

The most closely related question that isn't ill-posed would be "Do children generally inherit a heightened capacity for specific talents, gifts, skills, and abilities from their parents?"  If memory serves, the answer to this question generally is "no", but there are exceptions.

actually, he points out that IQ is not a universal fact.  do you want me to point out the time stamp?

he also points out that it only measures intelligence in one dimension.

i am puzzled why you are so frumpy about this video, since every objection you bring up is part of what i find interesting about it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 10, 2016 20:54:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 10, 2016 18:47:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's an ill-posed question. He tries to present intelligence as a linear spectrum quantified by IQ, but fails, most notably because the notion of a "universal" IQ is an anachronism. We've long since discovered that intelligence is more like a collection of diverse talents, gifts, skills, and abilities than a general quality that can be associated with a number.

The most closely related question that isn't ill-posed would be "Do children generally inherit a heightened capacity for specific talents, gifts, skills, and abilities from their parents?"  If memory serves, the answer to this question generally is "no", but there are exceptions.

actually, he points out that IQ is not a universal fact.  do you want me to point out the time stamp?

he also points out that it only measures intelligence in one dimension.

i am puzzled why you are so frumpy about this video, since every objection you bring up is part of what i find interesting about it.

He pays lip service to the idea that intelligence is more than one-dimensional, but then he turns around and gives a general intelligence rubric. Later, he starts pontificating about his own IQ and Asperger's, and I found it hard to finish watching the video.

Like oped says, the debate on nurture versus nature is possibly the most controversial and widely studied subject in all of psychology. This video is a poorly-organized 8-minute case for "nurture" by a guy with more than a little baggage. It's really not all that impressive.

It's a good thing you find the subject so fascinating. Most psychologists would agree with you.

[mroped]

I don't believe that inteligence is a hereditary trait.
I do believe that all are born equal as far as inteligence. This is where the environment steps in and creates the future individual.
Caging one from birth to adulthood and denying anything including communication/language skills, would definetly result in an individual with no life skills but with just natural survival instincts like eating, sleeping and so on.( I hope nobody experimented with that)
Raising one in a free environment where exposure to science and life skills are the order of the day will definetly create an well rounded individual and the only limitation regarding their IQ would be their ability to process information.
Encouragement to think freely and be creative would be part of the routine
Said individual would find a solution for just about any problem thrown his way. 

The same individual, put on a regimen as far as education and life skills, would produce different results.
If all his life he is been told "this is the solution to this problem and that for that one" without offering a variety of scenarios and encouragement to find a solution, then this individual would know just that.
The environment in which he has been educated/trained had limitations, rules have been implemented forcing him to think and act accordingly. You take the rules away and he is lost but in a familiar environment, with rules in place, will excel at anything.

These environments are strictly connected to the nurture factor. You cannot cage one or tell them "this is the way it has to be"  in a "lovingly" manner!

What is scary to me at present about our society in general is that we refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt or even worse admit that their solution might be better than ours therefore admitting that someone else is smarter than us.
We live our lives and follow just ideas that we agree with, deny that any of the others are any good or better without even looking at. If we disagree with we simply classify it as "moronic" or "stupid".

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2016 8:38:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 10, 2016 20:54:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

actually, he points out that IQ is not a universal fact.  do you want me to point out the time stamp?

he also points out that it only measures intelligence in one dimension.

i am puzzled why you are so frumpy about this video, since every objection you bring up is part of what i find interesting about it.

He pays lip service to the idea that intelligence is more than one-dimensional, but then he turns around and gives a general intelligence rubric. Later, he starts pontificating about his own IQ and Asperger's, and I found it hard to finish watching the video.

Like oped says, the debate on nurture versus nature is possibly the most controversial and widely studied subject in all of psychology. This video is a poorly-organized 8-minute case for "nurture" by a guy with more than a little baggage. It's really not all that impressive.

It's a good thing you find the subject so fascinating. Most psychologists would agree with you.

what do you mean by "general intelligence rubrick"?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2016 11:10:20 GMT -5 mroped said:

I don't believe that inteligence is a hereditary trait.
I do believe that all are born equal as far as inteligence. This is where the environment steps in and creates the future individual.
Caging one from birth to adulthood and denying anything including communication/language skills, would definetly result in an individual with no life skills but with just natural survival instincts like eating, sleeping and so on.( I hope nobody experimented with that)
Raising one in a free environment where exposure to science and life skills are the order of the day will definetly create an well rounded individual and the only limitation regarding their IQ would be their ability to process information.
Encouragement to think freely and be creative would be part of the routine
Said individual would find a solution for just about any problem thrown his way. 

The same individual, put on a regimen as far as education and life skills, would produce different results.
If all his life he is been told "this is the solution to this problem and that for that one" without offering a variety of scenarios and encouragement to find a solution, then this individual would know just that.
The environment in which he has been educated/trained had limitations, rules have been implemented forcing him to think and act accordingly. You take the rules away and he is lost but in a familiar environment, with rules in place, will excel at anything.

These environments are strictly connected to the nurture factor. You cannot cage one or tell them "this is the way it has to be"  in a "lovingly" manner!

What is scary to me at present about our society in general is that we refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt or even worse admit that their solution might be better than ours therefore admitting that someone else is smarter than us.
We live our lives and follow just ideas that we agree with, deny that any of the others are any good or better without even looking at. If we disagree with we simply classify it as "moronic" or "stupid".

it seems to me that if you are convinced that nurture is THE driver of intelligence that we should be focusing a lot more attention on that.  it has profound implications for societies, education, health, and welfare.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 11, 2016 12:14:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 11, 2016 8:38:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He pays lip service to the idea that intelligence is more than one-dimensional, but then he turns around and gives a general intelligence rubric. Later, he starts pontificating about his own IQ and Asperger's, and I found it hard to finish watching the video.

Like oped says, the debate on nurture versus nature is possibly the most controversial and widely studied subject in all of psychology. This video is a poorly-organized 8-minute case for "nurture" by a guy with more than a little baggage. It's really not all that impressive.

It's a good thing you find the subject so fascinating. Most psychologists would agree with you.

what do you mean by "general intelligence rubrick"?

I can't remember the exact point in the video, but he goes on about all the factors IQ supposedly measures (memory, critical thinking, ability to handle abstractness, numeracy, etc., etc.), then he starts talking about the intellectual elite in days of yore, then starts talking about food, then about how world IQ is rising because people have more time to think, and...

Does he think IQ is important?

Damned if I know.

If he doesn't, he sure talks about it a lot.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2016 18:29:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 11, 2016 12:14:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what do you mean by "general intelligence rubrick"?

I can't remember the exact point in the video, but he goes on about all the factors IQ supposedly measures (memory, critical thinking, ability to handle abstractness, numeracy, etc., etc.), then he starts talking about the intellectual elite in days of yore, then starts talking about food, then about how world IQ is rising because people have more time to think, and...

Does he think IQ is important?

Damned if I know.

If he doesn't, he sure talks about it a lot.

ah, i see.  no, i don't think he thinks IQ is important.

do you?

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 11, 2016 18:37:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 11, 2016 18:29:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I can't remember the exact point in the video, but he goes on about all the factors IQ supposedly measures (memory, critical thinking, ability to handle abstractness, numeracy, etc., etc.), then he starts talking about the intellectual elite in days of yore, then starts talking about food, then about how world IQ is rising because people have more time to think, and...

Does he think IQ is important?

Damned if I know.

If he doesn't, he sure talks about it a lot.

ah, i see.  no, i don't think he thinks IQ is important.

do you?

I neither know nor care.

Why don't you make a case for the video? Highlight a few of the arguments you find fascinating. Ground it a bit.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2016 19:03:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 11, 2016 18:37:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ah, i see.  no, i don't think he thinks IQ is important.

do you?

I neither know nor care.

Why don't you make a case for the video? Highlight a few of the arguments you find fascinating. Ground it a bit.

it might take more time than i have, until Saturday.  but i will try to do that, then.

[Phoenix84]

Interesting.

Sounds like the classic "nature vs. nurture" debate.  The guy in the video seems to be making the argument that intelligence has less to do with hereditary aspects and more to do with upbringing and environment.  

I think that ultimately it's a combination of the two factors.  

[djAdvocate]

i think he is also making the case that IQ is an arbitrary measure of intelligence.

and i agree with him.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 11, 2016 19:03:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 11, 2016 18:37:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ah, i see.  no, i don't think he thinks IQ is important.

do you?

I neither know nor care.

Why don't you make a case for the video? Highlight a few of the arguments you find fascinating. Ground it a bit.

first of all, i agree with the critique of Idiocracy.  i have to say that, having watched that film twice, the eugenics message didn't really hit me at all.  i was more interested in the sight gags and the stupidity of it than the underlying messaging.

the second and main point was the impact of poverty on IQ for environmental reasons.  this is well known, but has rarely been stated this plainly, or with as many illustrations.  but as well known as it is, it is rarely discussed when we talk about things like education and voting.

and finally, there is the critique of IQ as a measure of intelligence, already mentioned.

and yeah, this is sprawling and chaotic.  i agree.  but i still think all of that is interesting.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 21, 2016 13:13:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 11, 2016 19:03:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I neither know nor care.

Why don't you make a case for the video? Highlight a few of the arguments you find fascinating. Ground it a bit.

first of all, i agree with the critique of Idiocracy.  i have to say that, having watched that film twice, the eugenics message didn't really hit me at all.  i was more interested in the sight gags and the stupidity of it than the underlying messaging.

the second and main point was the impact of poverty on IQ for environmental reasons.  this is well known, but has rarely been stated this plainly, or with as many illustrations.  but as well known as it is, it is rarely discussed when we talk about things like education and voting.

and finally, there is the critique of IQ as a measure of intelligence, already mentioned.

and yeah, this is sprawling and chaotic.  i agree.  but i still think all of that is interesting.

I love the back-to-back paragraphs (both true): "...the impact of poverty on IQ for environmental reasons..." and "...the critique of IQ as a measure of intelligence...".

So, poverty and environmental factors impact IQ, but IQ is a lousy measure of intelligence anyway. So apparently all is well.

That, and "...sprawling and chaotic..." basically summarize the video for me.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 21, 2016 14:40:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 21, 2016 13:13:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, i agree with the critique of Idiocracy.  i have to say that, having watched that film twice, the eugenics message didn't really hit me at all.  i was more interested in the sight gags and the stupidity of it than the underlying messaging.

the second and main point was the impact of poverty on IQ for environmental reasons.  this is well known, but has rarely been stated this plainly, or with as many illustrations.  but as well known as it is, it is rarely discussed when we talk about things like education and voting.

and finally, there is the critique of IQ as a measure of intelligence, already mentioned.

and yeah, this is sprawling and chaotic.  i agree.  but i still think all of that is interesting.

I love the back-to-back paragraphs (both true): "...the impact of poverty on IQ for environmental reasons..." and "...the critique of IQ as a measure of intelligence...".

So, poverty and environmental factors impact IQ, but IQ is a lousy measure of intelligence anyway. So apparently all is well.

That, and "...sprawling and chaotic..." basically summarize the video for me.

right.  but just because i think that IQ is a poor measure of native intelligence doesn't mean i think it is USELESS.  i actually think it is quite useful, Virgil. 

anyways, we seem to be getting along today, and i don't want to spoil that.  i am going to go catch a showing of Citizen Kane on the big screen. 

[mroped]

There is a novel "From Earth to the Moon" I believe by Jules Verne. I read the book sometimes in 6-7th grade.
In there, there is an interesting concept presented: put one in society/field in a position that has been predestined for the individual: you will be a laborer- you get long, strong arms and so on.
At the time the idea seemed "cool" but ofcourse I was a child. 
The accent was put in the lunar society on the choice that those in charge made for the new born whom were selected and raised for specific fields from the beginning.
It was done under the assumption that this way all needs of the society will be met by heading off any shortage in manpower or brain power in any aspect of life.
Ofcourse the individuals could not cross lines and change fields during their lifetime.

Totaly, completely diferent aproach than in Idiocracy where nobody does anything at all!