And it is a deadly sin.

Outstanding work today, LGF

Tonight's provocative science question:

Researchers at U.C. Berkeley just proved that "poor" kids have impaired brain function as compared to "rich" kids.

To put it a bit more colloquially: Poor people are stupid. Rich people are smart. It's not just a assumption any more -- it's been proven beyond any doubt.

Now, here's where things get interesting. Up until fairly recently in human history, this fact was presumed to be true, and it was taken to clearly indicate a thesis that was also presumed to be self-evident:

Stupid people (or their forebears) are poor because they are stupid; and smart people (or their forebears) became rich primarily because they were smart.

In other words: the stupidity, over the generations, caused the poverty. And the intelligence, over the generations, led to the accumulation of wealth.

This is essentially the view that was eventually ratified by Herbert Spencer under the sobriquet "Social Darwinism" (a nomenclature, it should be noted, that Darwin himself hated, and which he did not coin; in fact, Darwin disliked Spencer and his theories, and was greatly distressed that his name had been hijacked).

However, this being the modern PC world, the researchers who did the brain study came to the the exact opposite conclusion, also based on no evidence whatsoever, aside from assumptions: that...

Poor people become stupid because they are poor; and rich people become smart because they are rich.

Take this quote from the article as an example of this attitude:

"This is a wake-up call," Knight said. "It's not just that these kids are poor and more likely to have health problems, but they might actually not be getting full brain development from the stressful and relatively impoverished environment associated with low socioeconomic status: fewer books, less reading, fewer games, fewer visits to museums."

Notice the word "might." (There are other flaws in this quote that I'll gloss over for now.)

This is a good example of science gone awry. The goal of the experimenters should be to simply provide the data. But due to the politicization of science, that's not good enough any more: now, scientists must make loosey-goosey assumptions about the causative factors of their results. Which always get them on to shaky ground.

The truth is, neither side has any evidence that their theory is actually true. It could go either way -- it is a classic chicken-and-egg situation.

So, now that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that poor people on average have impaired brain function compared to rich people, I ask the question:

Which do you believe: That poverty causes stupidity (the modern PC view), or that stupidity causes poverty (the old-school harsh Social Darwinist view)?

Now, we all can cite plenty of counter-examples of stupid rich people and smart poor people; that's a given. I know plenty in both categories myself. And yes, wealth can be inherited by stupid offspring. But, to be completely frank, the study does seem accurate to me: ON AVERAGE, among the people I have encountered in my life, intelligence and success generally go together, and success leads to a decent amount of money; and stupidity leads to bad decisions, which usually cause poverty.

So, rather than a disputation of the findings, I ask:

Granting that the study (and common wisdom) are accurate, which camp do you fall in, as regards the stupidity-poverty cycle? Which is the root cause?

There is no sin except stupidity.

— Oscar Wilde

Holy cow! The thread is about stupidity! I didn't even know that when I posted my comment #3 -- I had written it for the previous thread, and only posted it here when i saw a new thread opening up.

Cosmic coincidence!

re: #4 zombie

Holy cow! The thread is about stupidity! I didn't even know that when I posted my comment #3 -- I had written it for the previous thread, and only posted it here when i saw a new thread opening up.

Cosmic coincidence!

Just "dumb" luck

re: #3 zombie

Two words:
Paris Hilton

Of course, the conspiracy theorists now have more grist for their mill -- that I either am Charles, or somehow have insider knowledge about upcoming threads. How else could I have written a mini-essay about stupidity shortly before a stupidity-themed thread was even posted?

But it ain't true! I swear it! Charles is in L.A, I'm in S.F., and we do not know each other.

Without giving it a whole lot of thought my sympathies lie with the social darwinists here. See Bill Gates.

re: #3 zombie

ON AVERAGE, among the people I have encountered in my life, intelligence and success generally go together, and success leads to a decent amount of money; and stupidity leads to bad decisions, which usually cause poverty.

I agree with your assessment. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle, and believe that a majority of people in this country are also.

re: #6 rawmuse

Two words:
Paris Hilton

Like I said, we can sit here all night coming up with plenty of counter-examples, like Paris Hilton, etc. But that's not the point. Which is why said, near the end, "...rather than a disputation of the findings...". In other words: setting aside the many comical counter-examples, let's address the actual results of the study.

re: #8 MrPaulRevere

re: #9 AmeriDan

So far, Social Darwinism is leading 2 - 0!

re: #7 zombie

Of course, the conspiracy theorists now have more grist for their mill -- that I either am Charles, or somehow have insider knowledge about upcoming threads. How else could I have written a mini-essay about stupidity shortly before a stupidity-themed thread was even posted?

But it ain't true! I swear it! Charles is in L.A, I'm in S.F., and we do not know each other.

So how come we've never seen you two in the same room together?

re: #9 AmeriDan

I agree with your assessment. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle, and believe that a majority of people in this country are also.

Well, that's the very essence of intelligence tests: the vast, vast majority of people are in the middle. Average is, after all -- average!

Rich kids generally have every advantage you can name. Early training, the best toys, high tech goodies, very good health care, so I would expect that they would do better on IQ and EEG tests.

re: #3 zombie

I haven't read the article yet, obviously, but I would expect that poor people would be "most stupid" based on the lifestyle. Brain function is at least in part due to the environment the brain develops in. Rich people have a better diet, have time to spend fostering their children, and lead a less stressful lifestyle. The neighborhoods they live in and activities they can afford futher stimulate development. There may be something else going on that means poor people start out with less genetic potential, but the environmental situation is so strong that I would lean more on the "nurture" part of the equasion here.

Forgive me Father, for I am stupid.

re: #12 AmeriDan

So how come we've never seen you two in the same room together?

Becuase you've never seen either of us in any room!

re: #3 zombie

Maybe I am too cynical but the I have to wonder if the study was done for the purpose of promoting welfare state socialism.

"I have sinned!"

Hamas: Abbas no longer heads PA

The IDF's anti-Hamas operation in the Gaza Strip has diverted attention from the row over Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's term in office, which expires on Friday.

Abbas was elected in January 2005 to a four-year term.

Hamas officials said that as of Friday they would not recognize Abbas's status as president of the PA.

But they also made it clear that they would not demand his resignation for now "because of the war" in the Gaza Strip.

/so I guess no one's responsible for living up to the terrorist's end of the brand new, shiny U.N. resolution

re: #10 zombie

Like I said, we can sit here all night coming up with plenty of counter-examples, like Paris Hilton, etc. But that's not the point. Which is why said, near the end, "...rather than a disputation of the findings...". In other words: setting aside the many comical counter-examples, let's address the actual results of the study.

What criteria are they using to determine intelligence? Book knowledge about certain facts, a standardized test or looking at reasoning skills? What did they use as a control group, how large were the groups and did they compare them to groups from other regions, ethnicities and cultures?

re: #14 rawmuse

re: #15 Dainn

Ooohhh, PC makes a comeback!

The score is now:

Social Darwinism 2 - PC 2

A tie!

re: #13 zombie

Well, that's the very essence of intelligence tests: the vast, vast majority of people are in the middle. Average is, after all -- average!

Yea! I'm average! It sure beats the hell out of being full time stupid. Although, I've had my moments.

If a society is based on merit, most folks wind up on the socio-economic ladder precisely where they belong. Paris Hilton and Tedd Kennedy notwithstanding.

zombie: for your perusal, "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity". Something I discovered quite a few years ago and still read on occassion.

re: #8 MrPaulRevere

Without giving it a whole lot of thought my sympathies lie with the social darwinists here. See Bill Gates.

Were Gates' parents rich? The point is that rich children are smarter.

re: #17 zombie

Becuase you've never seen either of us in any room!

There you go again with the facts. Always the darn facts.

:)

re: #3 zombie

Zombie, this result is massively unsurprising.

I see two main elements

First, an awful lot of education involves living up (or down) to expectations. Given an equal pool of candidates, the rich will be expected to achieve more and due mostly to environmental factors, will achieve more, in school and out.

Second, and this is the putative new result, people's intelligence, and the intelligent behavior that brings achievement, is related to the physical functioning of their brains. Now we can see it in brain scans. It shocks many people that intelligence can be measured, physically. Hey, you can measure the speed of a computer physically, you can measure the amount of memory the computer is using, that is not surprising.

I propose there is nothing shocking about the results, except that it shocks some people.

re: #18 Syrah

Maybe I am too cynical but the I have to wonder if the study was done for the purpose of promoting welfare state socialism.

I wonder as well. Many studies that might seem otherwise empirically neutral end up having (especially at places like U.C. Berkeley) radical political agendas. Which is why the scientists often seem to make unsupported and unsupportable claims that do not flow from their experimental data (as in this case).

It's like they'll do any kind of study, off the tops of their heads, and they already write the conclusion for it ahead of time: "Whatever the results, they indicate the need for more socialism!"

re: #3 zombie

The researchers seem to indicate that there are environmental factors at play while, at the same time, claiming that they set up the study where the only difference between the subjects was socio economic status.

Well - obviously it wasn't.

If we get to fit a whole bag full of factors in the bin labeled "socio economic status" then the study hasn't isolated shit. It has simply borne out the biases of the people who designed the study to produce the intended result.

"fewer books, less reading, fewer games, fewer visits to museums"

All those are given as potential differences between the statuses that could affect the difference in brain development. Well - which is it? Because none of those have anything to do with how many dollars happen to be in the pocket of mom and dad at the time of the experiment. The money only correlates (we are made to assume) with these factors. If the parents of the poor participants win the lottery tomorrow, can the rerun the experiment expecting different results. No.

IMO - Junk science designed to get more funding for junk science and be cited by other people in search of grant money and pushing social programs.

Ugh! I am PC? Now I need a bath.

I guess the law of averages means the PC people have to have it right sometimes.

*fistbumps Blue*

Yo.

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What criteria are they using to determine intelligence? Book knowledge about certain facts, a standardized test or looking at reasoning skills? What did they use as a control group, how large were the groups and did they compare them to groups from other regions, ethnicities and cultures?

Read the link in comment #3. They did it by recording actual brain activity.

re: #24 MrPaulRevere

There's always an exception to every rule. I don't think social darwinism has anything to do with why stupid people are poor and vice versa. I have seen some rather smart poor people that learned the games of the welfare system and used it to their advantage. A better analogy would be that lazy people tend to be poorer and energetic people are more successful.

after having spent a week in a local community college classroom watching the hoi palloi try to come to grips with certain basic concepts like "arrive on time", "participate in class", "not text in class", etc........ not to mention the additional issue of grasping what *was* high school biology when i was young......Zombie is an optimist.

this doesn't even deal with the fact that the majority of respondents to the in class query answered that evolution is either "unproved" or "false".

i'm glad i'll be dead before these cretins will be in charge of my care.

Zombie is an optimist.

Gates was born in Seattle, Washington, to William H. Gates, Sr. and Mary Maxwell Gates. His family was upper middle class; [Link: en.wikipedia.org...] re: #26 Dainn

Well, I remember when the scientists were sure that the differences were due to nutrition, so we created WIC and food stamps. The Great Society, in fact, was only supposed to last a generation or two... and when the better nutrition had its time to work, and when the stress of having to scramble to make a living was eliminated, poverty and failure would naturally fade away.

And then there is the failure of Head Start... a program that always seems to have the answer "just around the corner"... but that corner is never turned.

re: #24 MrPaulRevere

If a society is based on merit, most folks wind up on the socio-economic ladder precisely where they belong. Paris Hilton and Tedd Kennedy notwithstanding.

Score another for S.D.

The score as of comment #24:

Social Darwinism: 3
Political Corretness: 2

re: #3 zombie

An impoverished youth can inhibit, or delay, the development of a potentially bright mind and inherited wealth cannot save a dimwit; this you've acknowledged yourself. The fact that a youth of poverty doesn't preclude future wealth and vice-a-verse suggests that there is more than one binary variable here.

I would suggest that there is something behind a natural talent to learn and that education (in this context, that's provided (rich/successful), or not (poor/failures), by the parents) are the two essential characteristics that prevent the false dichotomy you've suggested.

I would be very surprised if this study was free from a certain political influence given its origin at Berkeley.

re: #17 zombie

Becuase you've never seen either of us in any room!

i think you two should get a room....

/white smoke

re: #3 zombie

Granting that the study (and common wisdom) are accurate, which camp do you fall in, as regards the stupidity-poverty cycle? Which is the root cause?

I believe education is the great equalizer. Ignorance leads to poverty.

Hey AmeriDan. How is it going up north there. Saw a stupid thread, and I just had to jump in.

This is the old nature vs. nurture argument that has been around since B.F. Skinner's box. The consensus seems to be that both play a role.

re: #39 Dan G.

PIMF "prevent" = "precludes"

re: #20 Killian Bundy

Hamas: Abbas no longer heads PA

/so I guess no one's responsible for living up to the terrorist's end of the brand new, shiny U.N. resolution

How devastating...to think that in one year Israel is going to lose this "moderate" leader...

To be honest, I'm OK with this arrangement for now. As long as Israel continues to try and improve its security, the West Bank model should be used in Gaza (that is a the most realistic solution; I'm all for deporting everyone's asses if that waso n the table). From 2000-2005 there were hundreds upon hundreds of Israeli victims from terrorist attacks from the West Bank, and since Defensive Shield that figure has dwindled to its current tolerable state. You don't see rockets being fired from the West Bank - and that's not because there is no one there who doesn't want to fire rockets (there are plenty), but because of Israels grip on the territory. All those checkpoints that people deem so "inconvenient" for the poor Palestinians, and the Security Wall have been extremely successful in curbing terrorism. In Gaza, on the other hand, Israel has no military presence and Hamas and other terrorist organizations can operate freely. Different situation in WB.

re: #37 stevieray

All true. Now we will have to establish pocket book equilibrium to ensure all Americans get a fair shot at life's blessings. Or so we are supposed to conclude.

re: #28 itellu3times

Zombie, this result is massively unsurprising.

I see two main elements

First, an awful lot of education involves living up (or down) to expectations. Given an equal pool of candidates, the rich will be expected to achieve more and due mostly to environmental factors, will achieve more, in school and out.

Second, and this is the putative new result, people's intelligence, and the intelligent behavior that brings achievement, is related to the physical functioning of their brains. Now we can see it in brain scans. It shocks many people that intelligence can be measured, physically. Hey, you can measure the speed of a computer physically, you can measure the amount of memory the computer is using, that is not surprising.

I propose there is nothing shocking about the results, except that it shocks some people.

I take that as a sorta-PC vote

The score is now tied again, 3-3.

re: #41 recd1c4

i think you two should get a room....

/white smoke

I'm not into zombies of indeterminable genders.

Hiya red.

re: #30 karmic_inquisitor

The researchers seem to indicate that there are environmental factors at play while, at the same time, claiming that they set up the study where the only difference between the subjects was socio economic status.

Well - obviously it wasn't.

If we get to fit a whole bag full of factors in the bin labeled "socio economic status" then the study hasn't isolated shit. It has simply borne out the biases of the people who designed the study to produce the intended result.

All those are given as potential differences between the statuses that could affect the difference in brain development. Well - which is it? Because none of those have anything to do with how many dollars happen to be in the pocket of mom and dad at the time of the experiment. The money only correlates (we are made to assume) with these factors. If the parents of the poor participants win the lottery tomorrow, can the rerun the experiment expecting different results. No.

IMO - Junk science designed to get more funding for junk science and be cited by other people in search of grant money and pushing social programs.

By Jove, I think you've hit the nail on the head!

re: #44 Dainn

Quality of parenting is a factor no question. I stand by my statement that most folks wind up precisely where they belong.

I know that some species of fish undergo massive coloration and body shape changes according to their social status -- they get bigger and brightly colored after they get to the top of the heap.

I wonder if there could be a version of this in humans... we do seem to be inherently hierarchal and status conscious.

Sort of an Alpha family effect.

re: #43 BlueCanuck

Hey AmeriDan. How is it going up north there. Saw a stupid thread, and I just had to jump in.

Jump on in, the waters fine.

P.S. I'm way down south from you.

Feed the rich kids more lead paint chips, even things out.

re: #35 redc1c4

after having spent a week in a local community college classroom watching the hoi palloi try to come to grips with certain basic concepts like "arrive on time", "participate in class", "not text in class", etc........ not to mention the additional issue of grasping what *was* high school biology when i was young......Zombie is an optimist.

this doesn't even deal with the fact that the majority of respondents to the in class query answered that evolution is either "unproved" or "false".

i'm glad i'll be dead before these cretins will be in charge of my care.

Zombie is an optimist.

Not sure where to classify that vote. I'll count it as a write-in candidate for, "Everyone's an idiot!"

re: #54 rawmuse

Why not just feed the poor ones less? Got something against well functioning brains?

A thought provoking topic indeed Zombie. MY IQ is going up just discussing it.

re: #33 zombie

Read the link in comment #3. They did it by recording actual brain activity.

While test reading might indicate some similarities, I dont think that by themselves, they could either promote or hinder someones innate drives or intelligence any more than random genetic chance can by making some people more athletic, prone to being fat, skinny, etc. I have to fall into category, stupid comes first

re: #56 Dan G.

Why not just feed the poor ones less? Got something against well functioning brains?

Sorry, left out the sarc tag. busted.

re: #53 AmeriDan

DOH! Sorry, brain short circuited and I confused you with some one else. :)

/don't worry got it straightened out now.

re: #37 stevieray

Well, I remember when the scientists were sure that the differences were due to nutrition, so we created WIC and food stamps. The Great Society, in fact, was only supposed to last a generation or two... and when the better nutrition had its time to work, and when the stress of having to scramble to make a living was eliminated, poverty and failure would naturally fade away.

And then there is the failure of Head Start... a program that always seems to have the answer "just around the corner"... but that corner is never turned.

Yes, this counts as a S.D. vote -- that chad is hanging, but the committe awards the vote to Mr. Spencer.

Score as of comment #37:

Social Darwinism: 4
Political Correctness: 3
Everyone's an idiot: 1

re: #48 zombie

I take that as a sorta-PC vote

The score is now tied again, 3-3.

Does Dainn's comment at #26 count as a vote for SD?

re: #29 zombie

I wonder as well. Many studies that might seem otherwise empirically neutral end up having (especially at places like U.C. Berkeley) radical political agendas. Which is why the scientists often seem to make unsupported and unsupportable claims that do not flow from their experimental data (as in this case).

It's like they'll do any kind of study, off the tops of their heads, and they already write the conclusion for it ahead of time: "Whatever the results, they indicate the need for more socialism!"

I am also reminded of the Jack Block "crybaby conservatives" study.

Group That Funded Rep. Ellison's Pilgrimage to Mecca Called a Front for Extremism
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison took a trip to Mecca in December that was funded by a group terrorism experts say is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamist movement.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

There is no good and evil in this world; only power and those too weak to seek it.

re: #39 Dan G.

An impoverished youth can inhibit, or delay, the development of a potentially bright mind and inherited wealth cannot save a dimwit; this you've acknowledged yourself. The fact that a youth of poverty doesn't preclude future wealth and vice-a-verse suggests that there is more than one binary variable here.

I would suggest that there is something behind a natural talent to learn and that education (in this context, that's provided (rich/successful), or not (poor/failures), by the parents) are the two essential characteristics that prevent the false dichotomy you've suggested.

Damn, that seems like a vote for "Other." I.e. "This election is rigged!"

Score as of #39:

Social Darwinism: 4
Political Correctness: 3
Everyone's an idiot: 1
This election is rigged: 1

There's a proven genetic component to "intelligence", which gets swamped by the environmental learning component over time. End of discussion (not including birth defects).

/something to keep in mind when you start trying to rank individuals on some "smart/stupid" scale, it's more about life experience than "birth smarts"

re: #54 rawmuse

Feed the rich kids more lead paint chips, even things out.

Wow.

I can imagine other ways to validate these findings. For example, were there IQ tests that were taken before and after the adoption of school lunch programs? This could suggest whether diet is the key factor. Also, IQ compared to the literacy of the guardians, marital status, whether one parent stays home, and perhaps even education level may show us if the environment is a factor.

The problem is this: how do you isolate genetics? Unless we can cage children and control their environment then any results are going to be fuzzy.

To clarify my position... Stupidity definitely leads to poverty (unless someone is willing to foot the bill); it is the cause.

Don't forge to vote, lizards. Let's give lawhawk some help, "A Blog For All";
[Link: 2008.weblogawards.org...]

Light and dark define each other.

Can I change my vote from Social Darwinism to Taoism?

re: #22 zombie

Zombie, in my years of clinical service; in decades of in-class teaching and mentoring and tutoring; from field-research (of NO value here, other than the anecdotal significance per se) I have come to believe several dynamics exist:

1/ Poverty (over a period of years) DOES impoverish the brain, and

2/ Such poor nutrition CAN and often DOES impair personal growth; and

3/ Impoverished nutrition and impoverished attitudinal/spiritual environment CAN become habitual, but

4/ the poor food/poor environment conditions also CAN BE OVERCOME; and

5/ NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS or DYNAMICS inexorably lead to or CAUSE the condition discussed above, which we call STUPIDITY.

/Does this help?

re: #55 zombie

Not sure where to classify that vote. I'll count it as a write-in candidate for, "Everyone's an idiot!"

that's an insult to idiots................

/white smoke

Some news items and my opinion on good or bad. Apologies if some of this was posted before.

Border surge contingency. Good.

[Link: www.newsmax.com...]

Obama team rumor of talking to Hamas. Bad.

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

Change in don't ask don't tell. Bad.

[Link: www.newsmax.com...]

Nuclear umbrella weakening. Bad.

[Link: newsmax.com...]

Bush limits rights of illegals. Good.

[Link: newsmax.com...]

CIA/US Military/Special Ops bag some cockroaches. Good.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

re: #57 MrPaulRevere

A thought provoking topic indeed Zombie. MY IQ is going up just discussing it.

Mine too. A few more posts and I'll be in triple digits!

re: #42 Sharmuta

I believe education is the great equalizer. Ignorance leads to poverty.

Hmmmm, the two sentences of your reply seem to cancel each other out!

"I believe education is the great equalizer" implies the PC point of view, but " Ignorance leads to poverty" feels like Social Darwinism.

Your vote doesn't count, because you filled in the ovals for both candidates!

re: #71 Pvt Bin Jammin

PIMF....don't forget. LOL

re: #70 Dan G.

To clarify my position... Stupidity definitely leads to poverty (unless someone is willing to foot the bill); it is the cause.

Chicago Public Schools' cappuccino bill: $67,000
'A WASTE OF MONEY' %P% Report says staffers skirted rules to buy 30 coffeemakers, changed athletes' grades, falsified addresses

[Link: www.suntimes.com...]

BTW - Is it true that intelligence of males is inherited from the mother, whereas females inherit from both mom and dad.. IOW - is intelligence in the X chromosome?

re: #77 zombie

Hmmmm, the two sentences of your reply seem to cancel each other out!

"I believe education is the great equalizer" implies the PC point of view, but " Ignorance leads to poverty" feels like Social Darwinism.

Your vote doesn't count, because you filled in the ovals for both candidates!

It was a Taoist answer all along.

Intelligence without morality is of questionable value. Ted Bundy supposedly had an IQ of 140.

re: #77 zombie

Your vote doesn't count, because you filled in the ovals for both candidates!

I contest!

re: #73 Karridine

No

/ / / / /

There is always this classic "modest" solution to the problem.

re: #55 zombie

Not sure where to classify that vote. I'll count it as a write-in candidate for, "Everyone's an idiot!"

BTW: i'm a social darwinist on steroids: stupidity should be painful, and often fatal.

that way, even the slowest of the herd learn what years of OSHA regs and in service training sessions demonstrably can't get across.

re: #79 Dustyvet

Not sure how that's relevant... I'm thinking Michael Vick (Dumb, now broke) vs. Paris Hilton (Dumb, daddy's still loaded).

re: #65 bosforus

There is no good and evil in this world; only power and those too weak to seek it.

Harry Potter quote. Thought someone would surely recognize it. Oh well.

re: #82 rawmuse

Power is nothing without control... wasn't that some tire commercial?
/

re: #54 rawmuse

Feed the rich kids more lead paint chips, even things out.

Ah, this is actually a deep statement. Because: would the rich kids even eat the paint chips, if offered?

Besides which, pica is not caused by poverty, but is rather a psychological disorder, or (in certain circumstances) the result of unconscious nutritional cravings (i.e. eating red dirt due to anemia, etc.).

In other words, "stupidity" is mostly a learned behavior.

/defined strictly by environment

re: #57 MrPaulRevere

A thought provoking topic indeed Zombie. MY IQ is going up just discussing it.

Never before has a well-placed early comment so dominated an otherwise topic-less thread!

There are two things in this world that I really hate: The Dodgers, and liberals.

re: #85 Dainn

There is always this classic "modest" solution to the problem.

OMG I couldn't finish reading that.

re: #90 zombie

I thought pica was a measurement of font size.

re: #87 Dan G.

Not sure how that's relevant... I'm thinking Michael Vick (Dumb, now broke) vs. Paris Hilton (Dumb, daddy's still loaded).

breed them and see what happens......

/white smoke

re: #58 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

While test reading might indicate some similarities, I dont think that by themselves, they could either promote or hinder someones innate drives or intelligence any more than random genetic chance can by making some people more athletic, prone to being fat, skinny, etc. I have to fall into category, stupid comes first

OK!

Score as of comment #58:

Score as of #39:

Social Darwinism: 5
Political Correctness: 3
Everyone's an idiot: 1
This election is rigged: 1

re: #95 rawmuse

I thought pica was a measurement of font size.

I thought it was a flatbread.

re: #93 traderjoe9

There are two things in this world that I really hate: The Dodgers, and liberals.

sucks to be you........

re: #62 AmeriDan

Does Dainn's comment at #26 count as a vote for SD?

Dainn already voted in comment #15! This isn't Chicago or Ohio, people -- you can only vote once!

re: #87 Dan G.

Not sure how that's relevant... I'm thinking Michael Vick (Dumb, now broke) vs. Paris Hilton (Dumb, daddy's still loaded).

Yes Paris is dumb, but the key factor here is that her daddy is still in charge. Heard something once about generational wealth. First generation to create it, second generation to build it, third generation to maintain it, and fourth generation to lose it. Should be interesting to see what happens to the Hilton empire in the future.

re: #80 karmic_inquisitor

BTW - Is it true that intelligence of males is inherited from the mother, whereas females inherit from both mom and dad.. IOW - is intelligence in the X chromosome?

Intelligence, whether male or female, can be GREATLY ENHANCED by monied parents/family/environment, ie., by hiring tutors, affording a 3-week trip TO (Gettysburg Battlefield, Pyramids at Giza, the Lotus Temple in India); getting a powerful computer AND language/instructional CDs and DVDs for the children; sharing experiences with powerful people (often 'rich' themselves) and the like.

Being poor does not EXCLUDE the possibilities like these, but surely make them harder to come by in the windows-of-opportunity wherein the child can BENEFIT from them!

re: #61 zombie

I wouldn't put my vote in the social darwinist category... put it in the "sociologists are craven PC cowards and always were" category.

I think the difference is mainly due to a.] lousy home environment, and b.] a school system designed by sociologists who simply will not challenge the poor kids, nor hold them accountable (in an age-appropriate way).

There probably are elements of intelligence that are heritable, but the yawning chasm we see today is equally (at least) due to pandering and low/non-existent expectations.

re: #92 zombie

Never before has a well-placed early comment so dominated an otherwise topic-less thread!

Boob Thread!

/we'll fix that.....

night all - keep the world safe for the next few hours, ok?

Well...
I've been rich and I've been poor
And there's one thing I know for sure
I'd rather be rich!

re: #90 zombie

Ah, this is actually a deep statement. Because: would the rich kids even eat the paint chips, if offered?

Besides which, pica is not caused by poverty, but is rather a psychological disorder, or (in certain circumstances) the result of unconscious nutritional cravings (i.e. eating red dirt due to anemia, etc.).

Harrison Bergeron

re: #63 Syrah

I am also reminded of the Jack Block "crybaby conservatives" study.

Ooooohhhh, do NOT bring that up. I know too much about that one. In my opinion, the most evil study of the post-war era -- and that's saying somethin'.

re: #100 zombie

Dainn already voted in comment #15! This isn't Chicago or Ohio, people -- you can only vote once!

you misinterpreted my vote: i demand that it be sent to the comittee.
if there is no justice, there will be no peace!

Another angle, Zombie.

You are trying to ascertain which came first (as you used the chicken/egg metaphor). In my mind, I imagine situations like the industrial revolution as a cusp between poor by-and-large, and wealth/abundance. Which came first? Was there wealth that magically appeared to stave off massive wide-spread stupidity? Or was there intelligence that came first and made the wealth possible?

re: #67 Killian Bundy

There's a proven genetic component to "intelligence", which gets swamped by the environmental learning component over time. End of discussion (not including birth defects).

/something to keep in mind when you start trying to rank individuals on some "smart/stupid" scale, it's more about life experience than "birth smarts"

A definite PC vote.

Score as of #67:

Social Darwinism: 5
Political Correctness: 4
Everyone's an idiot: 1
This election is rigged: 1

re: #101 BlueCanuck

Yes. The saying early in the 20th century was, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations".

re: #101 BlueCanuck

As long as she doesn't have to dip into the principle, she'll be fine. As for any future offspring of hers? Good luck with that.

re: #100 zombie

Dainn already voted in comment #15! This isn't Chicago or Ohio, people -- you can only vote once!

No fair. I voted for Zomblog more than once. Where is my quid pro quo!

re: #66 zombie

Damn, that seems like a vote for "Other." I.e. "This election is rigged!"

Score as of #39:

Social Darwinism: 4
Political Correctness: 3
Everyone's an idiot: 1
This election is rigged: 1

What is the thesis here, that *either* (a) intelligence is 100% genetic and causes success, and this is equivalent to social darwinism, or (b) intelligence is 100% a matter of environment, and this is political correctness?

I'm sorry, but the answer is that both genetics and environment have crucial roles to play for most people, neither extreme answer is defensible. You shouldn't get a pass out of psych 1 if you can't recite this fact.

It's all relative. That's why my answer is Taoism. Say we could somehow be rid of "stupid" people. Who defines stupid? Then we'd have smart people and less smart people, who would be the new "stupid".

Dark and light define each other. It is the Tao.

re: #112 Dan G.

Interesting, might have to dig out the book I read that concept in and re-read it.

Intelligence is a sticky wicket if you will. I always excelled and the social sciences and did poorly or passably at math and the sciences. I used to wonder why that was, but came to the conclusion that it is what it is. Certain topics interested me and others didn't.

re: #110 Dan G.

Or was there intelligence that came first and made the wealth possible?

Chicken or egg?

re: #103 stevieray

There probably are elements of intelligence that are [in]heritable,

/fixed that for ya

There are many times when I have a lot more fun around stupid people.
Intellectuals can be so droll.
Stupid people are more likely to be uninhibited.

Just read this on Israel Matzav (Carl in Jerusalem)...it is superb, and the best reason to vote for him in the WebLog 2008 contest. His info in the last 2 weeks of the war has been amazing, as usual, and if you agree, please vote early and vote often! ;)

If it has been more than 24 hours since you last voted for me, please start your day off right and click on this link and vote for me as Best Midsize blog in the Weblog Awards 2008. Thanks.

Early Friday morning Israel time, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to call for an 'immediate and durable' 'cease fire.' The United States abstained.

The resolution itself is an oxymoron. By definition, no 'cease fire' that is 'immediate' will be durable, because the only durable cease fire in Gaza is one that includes safeguards to ensure that Hamas can no longer turn the Strip into an ammunition dump.

Israel repeated after the vote what it said before the vote: The United Nations will not dictate the end of Operation Cast Lead:
Jerusalem quickly responded to the decision by saying that no UN resolution would dictate when Israel would end its operation in Gaza. Senior officials told Israel Radio early Friday morning that only the achievement of goals defined by the Security Cabinet would establish the cessation of military activity.
The entire situation is absurd since Israel as a member state is bound to obey Security Council resolutions, while Hamas is not.

Given that we are eleven days from the end of the Bush administration, Israel can probably continue the operation until then without coming into conflict with the United States. But come January 20, life may be different. Not only will the UN be putting Hamas on the footing of a state actor, so will the incoming Obama administration (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 ­Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group.

The Guardian has spoken to three ­people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches.... A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.
I'm not sure it's correct that such contacts were initiated in the 1970's, or if they were initiated that Israel did not know about them (the source of this piece is al-Guardian, and while I have removed things that I deemed to be editorial comments in what is ostensibly a news story, I left that one in because I am not sure). The US talking with Hamas in any form is going to go over like a ton of bricks here, at least initially. Of course, since both we and the US talk to another terror organization (Fatah) as if it's a state actor, it's kind of hard to justify not talking to Hamas too. However, it is an article of faith in Israel that talking to Fatah is okay and talking to Hamas is not.

In any event, it looks likely that the US will talk to Hamas whether we want them to or not - unless Congress raises serious objections. And unfortunately, for the first two years, Obama is likely to get a free pass from Congress. [...]

Please see all! G'nite for real! Sweet dreams, Lizards.

re: #116 Sharmuta

I'd disagree. You don't need to use the intelligence of others as a datum to measure against. You could use "would starve to death barring any outside assistance (other than trade)" (or something like that) as the threshold for stupidity. This is off the top of my head, but it can be based on some basic capacity to make decisions that lead to continued existence.

re: #69 Dainn

I can imagine other ways to validate these findings. For example, were there IQ tests that were taken before and after the adoption of school lunch programs? This could suggest whether diet is the key factor. Also, IQ compared to the literacy of the guardians, marital status, whether one parent stays home, and perhaps even education level may show us if the environment is a factor.

The problem is this: how do you isolate genetics? Unless we can cage children and control their environment then any results are going to be fuzzy.

IQ test scores were on average not improved by school lunch programs. That presumptive experiment failed.

Problem with all your other proposals, as you yourself point out, is that you can't really isolate the different factors from each other, so it all gets fuzzy and blurry.

The only real valid tests in this field are "orphaned identical twins" tests, in which parentless identical twins raised in radically different foster homes are later tested upon maturation. The results (despite what Killian said in #67, that environmental factors "swamp" genetic factors) is that it's almost exactly 50-50: nature and nurture have a nearly exactly-equal effect on development (at least according to these twin studies).

re: #104 redc1c4

Boob Thread!

/we'll fix that.....

BOOBIES

! I like boobies.

Rich or poor. Smart or dumb.

Not voting, just here waiting for a bus...:)

re: #102 Karridine

Thanks - I don't think intelligence is innate but I do think that brains are an organ and some are genetically different from others. Just as some folks inherit muscle structure that gives them an edge athletically over those who don't, brain function can have a genetic edge.

But I share your observation. IMO, we use so little of our brains that 90% of the population could, if trained early enough, be fully educated and credentialed behavioral researchers, for example.

Coincidentally, I ordered this book tonight:

"Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count"

Increasingly, I believe the difference between success and failure, in individuals and societies, is directly due to the culture... the deeply held (and often unconscious) ideas about life, humanity, and the individual's place in the world that shape the prosperity and freedom those people will find.

curve ball...........is artistic ability a sign of intelligence?

Many idiot savants (see: Rainman) posses "genius" mathematical or musical abilities.

/however, unless their environment brings out these abilities, they're just idiots

re: #126 Dustyvet

Not voting, just here waiting for a bus...:)

I hope it's not the Obama Bus.

re: #70 Dan G.

To clarify my position... Stupidity definitely leads to poverty (unless someone is willing to foot the bill); it is the cause.

OK, I'll change your vote then. New results as of comment #70

Social Darwinism: 6
Political Correctness: 4
Everyone's an idiot: 1

re: #122 NY Nana

Choosing between Carl and Zombie.....I need the wisdom of Solomon here.

re: #72 Sharmuta

Light and dark define each other.

Can I change my vote from Social Darwinism to Taoism?

That's not on the ballot. Sorry.

re: #131 AmeriDan

I hope it's not the Obama Bus.

Nope....I slow, but not that slow...:)

re: #129 IslandLibertarian

curve ball...........is artistic ability a sign of intelligence?

No way, IMHO. It is a sign of creativity.

re: #119 AmeriDan

Would be if it wasn't for so much evidence. The industrial revolution, colonial America, many modern Asian countries... Wealth didn't appear ex nihilio.

re: #124 zombie

the only real valid tests in this field are "orphaned identical twins" tests, in which parentless identical twins raised in radically different foster homes are later tested upon maturation. The results (despite what Killian said in #67, that environmental factors "swamp" genetic factors) is that it's almost exactly 50-50: nature and nurture have a nearly exactly-equal effect on development (at least according to these twin studies).

Then we should hit the factor we can change hard. We can't do much to change their genetic structure, but we can foster an environment to give them the best chance possible.

I was born to poor parents and I are real smartish.

re: #124 zombie

The only real valid tests in this field are "orphaned identical twins" tests, in which parentless identical twins raised in radically different foster homes are later tested upon maturation. The results (despite what Killian said in #67, that environmental factors "swamp" genetic factors) is that it's almost exactly 50-50: nature and nurture have a nearly exactly-equal effect on development (at least according to these twin studies).

/linky?

Zombie, I'd put your IQ in the top 5 percentile or so.
If I may ask, were you from a rich family?

re: #136 AmeriDan

No way, IMHO. It is a sign of creativity.

Hence, no "creator" could be involved in intelligent design.

Hey, that was pretty intelligent!

re: #73 Karridine

Zombie, in my years of clinical service; in decades of in-class teaching and mentoring and tutoring; from field-research (of NO value here, other than the anecdotal significance per se) I have come to believe several dynamics exist:

1/ Poverty (over a period of years) DOES impoverish the brain, and

2/ Such poor nutrition CAN and often DOES impair personal growth; and

3/ Impoverished nutrition and impoverished attitudinal/spiritual environment CAN become habitual, but

4/ the poor food/poor environment conditions also CAN BE OVERCOME; and

5/ NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS or DYNAMICS inexorably lead to or CAUSE the condition discussed above, which we call STUPIDITY.

/Does this help?

Help? Well, it's a real fence-straddling position, from what I can figure: You're saying that the conditions of poverty DO "impoverish the brain," but DON'T cause "stupidity."

Intriguing, but too many chads are hanging for this vote to be counted either way!

re: #134 zombie

That's not on the ballot. Sorry.

Al Franken's lawyer will be in contact with you.

re: #132 zombie

OK, I'll change your vote then. New results as of comment #70

Social Darwinism: 6
Political Correctness: 4
Everyone's an idiot: 1

and their's 27 votes and counting for "fruitcup!"

that's why i'm off to go mess some up, and then hit the rack to deal with the geniuses......

/white smoke.

re: #132 zombie

My comment arose due to the fact that I'm apprehensive about the baggage that accompanies "Social Darwinism", it is an unnecessary package deal. This one fact doesn't necessarily lead to all of Spencer's conclusions.

re: #135 Dustyvet

Some music for an American Hero while he waits on that bus.

re: #104 redc1c4

Boob Thread!

/we'll fix that.....

Well, I like a nice pair of boobies myself. ;)

My brain hurts. Nite all!

re: #142 zombie

Eh I think he's just feeling chaddy..

and on that drive-by note...later!

re: #82 rawmuse

Intelligence without morality is of questionable value. Ted Bundy supposedly had an IQ of 140.

Oh, that goes without saying. Smart+evil=dangerous. We're not discussing that aspect of intelligence, the morality component. Instead, just addressing the results of the study.

re: #141 IslandLibertarian

Hence, no "creator" could be involved in intelligent design.

Hey, that was pretty intelligent!

Incoming!

Please don't roll that hand grenade in here tonight. We're all being friendly.

re: #148 Dainn

My brain hurts. Nite all!

Good night. Hope your brain gets to feeling better.

re: #145 Dan G.

Well said. I don't demonize poor folks as some social Darwinists do, its unnecessary and mean spirited. However real life has taught me most folks wind up exactly where they belong.

re: #151 AmeriDan

I regretted it as soon as I hit the post button..............

Let's keep talkin' 'bout sin!

re: #95 rawmuse

I thought pica was a measurement of font size.

Pica

Pica is a medical disorder characterized by an appetite for substances largely non-nutritive (e.g., clay, coal, soil, feces, chalk, paper, soap, mucus, ash, gum etc.) or an abnormal appetite for some things that may be considered foods

During the course of our lives, many of our vital characteristics fluctuate.
(Weight, blood pressure, antibody levels, hormone levels, metabolism)

Is there any evidence that our intelligence varies similarly?
Perhaps according to a particular time of day, or our ages.

re: #102 Karridine

Intelligence, whether male or female, can be GREATLY ENHANCED by monied parents/family/environment, ie., by hiring tutors, affording a 3-week trip TO (Gettysburg Battlefield, Pyramids at Giza, the Lotus Temple in India); getting a powerful computer AND language/instructional CDs and DVDs for the children; sharing experiences with powerful people (often 'rich' themselves) and the like.

Being poor does not EXCLUDE the possibilities like these, but surely make them harder to come by in the windows-of-opportunity wherein the child can BENEFIT from them!

Ah, but you are confusing education with intelligence. There is some connection between the two, but it is not as great as people think. I know many highly-educated people who are simply not intelligent. True IQ tests should not involved any cultural knowledge whatsoever.

re: #154 IslandLibertarian

I regretted it as soon as I hit the post button..............

Let's keep talkin' 'bout sin!

And Boobs.

re: #88 bosforus

Harry Potter quote. Thought someone would surely recognize it. Oh well.

"When good men die their goodness does not perish, but lives though they are gone. As for the bad, all that was theirs dies and is buried with them."

- Euripides

re: #133 MrPaulRevere

Here is what Zombie posted, in the most gracious post I have seen in a very long time!

Zombie, as you see, is voting for Carl, and asking other lizards to.

I am falling asleep on the keyboard! Ouch!

G'nite for real.

bOObsre: #158 AmeriDan

And Boobs.

Did someone say bOObs?

B( . )( . )Bs?

Nature vs Nurture in Intelligence

A large number of the study of twins reared apart was undertaken by Thomas Bouchard of the University of Minnesota starting in 1979. He “collected” pairs of separated twins from all over the world and reunited them while testing their personalities and IQs. Other studies at the same time concentrated on comparing the IQs of adopted people with those of their adopted parents and their biological parents or their siblings. Put all these studies together, which include the IQ tests of tens of thousands of individuals, and the table looks like this:

Same person tested twice 87%
Identical twins reared together 86%
Identical twins reared apart 76%
Fraternal twins reared together 55%
Biological siblings reared together 47% (studies show that reared apart about 24%)
Parents and children living together 40%
Parents and children living apart 31%
Adopted children living together 0%
Unrelated people living apart 0%

Memory lane, I took classes from him.

/there's population trends and then there's individuals and unlimited confounding factors in "reared apart", IQ doesn't necessarily correlate with "success" in life

OK, I am out for the eve. I will check in tomorrow for the final tally. Night!

re: #103 stevieray

I wouldn't put my vote in the social darwinist category... put it in the "sociologists are craven PC cowards and always were" category.

I think the difference is mainly due to a.] lousy home environment, and b.] a school system designed by sociologists who simply will not challenge the poor kids, nor hold them accountable (in an age-appropriate way).

There probably are elements of intelligence that are heritable, but the yawning chasm we see today is equally (at least) due to pandering and low/non-existent expectations.

OK, I'll change your vote to "both effects are equal," and add in 2 other similar votes from others that I didn't count due to vagueness.

re: #86 redc1c4

BTW: i'm a social darwinist on steroids: stupidity should be painful, and often fatal.

OK, I'll change your vote as well.

(Social Darwinism lost one vote, then gained it back!)

New results as of comment #103:

Social Darwinism: 6
Political Correctness: 4
Both effects are equal: 3

re: #160 NY Nana

Thanks Nana I missed that comment. That's very gracious of Zombie and I voted for Carl, who is fast becoming a blog superstar.

Speaking of dumb... why am I still awake? I've gotta get up early and jack up a house tomorrow.

G'Nite all!

re: #109 redc1c4

you misinterpreted my vote: i demand that it be sent to the comittee.
if there is no justice, there will be no peace!

OK, OK, I fixed it in comment #165!

It's hard being one person answering 25 commenters simultaneously! It's like a 25-1 Ping Pong game! Balls flyin' everywhere.

re: #161 Opilio

bOObs

Did someone say bOObs?

re: #162 IslandLibertarian

B( . )( . )Bs?

red started it.

Thank you red.

re: #168 zombie

Balls flyin' everywhere

I thought this was a BoOb Thread.

Goodnight all.

re: #171 Dan G.

Goodnight all.

Nite.

Of course the ultimate and most authoritative study on how overall intelligence levels change over time was disguised a comedic movie.

re: #115 itellu3times

What is the thesis here, that *either* (a) intelligence is 100% genetic and causes success, and this is equivalent to social darwinism, or (b) intelligence is 100% a matter of environment, and this is political correctness?

I'm sorry, but the answer is that both genetics and environment have crucial roles to play for most people, neither extreme answer is defensible. You shouldn't get a pass out of psych 1 if you can't recite this fact.

Yes, but professors with PhDs and massive grant finding and accolades from their colleagues are stating, without the slightest reservation, that the environmental factor is unquestionably the only factor involved. Read the article in the original comment #3.

I'm only presenting the dichotomy that they brought up.

Besides which, you've got the question wrong: the discussion is not whether nature or nuture causes intelligence but rather whether poverty is a consequence or a cause of stupidity.

re: #116 Sharmuta

It's all relative. That's why my answer is Taoism. Say we could somehow be rid of "stupid" people. Who defines stupid? Then we'd have smart people and less smart people, who would be the new "stupid".

Dark and light define each other. It is the Tao.

Grey? Shades of grey?!?! We demand black and white dichotomies! Pshaw on your eastern mysticism!

re: #82 rawmuse

Intelligence without morality is of questionable value. Ted Bundy supposedly had an IQ of 140.

Good point. And sometimes dangerous.

"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?"

- Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs)

Before I'm gone for the night, here's a nice poem that fits this open thread's theme.

The Thinker by Berton Braley

re: #122 NY Nana

Just read this on Israel Matzav (Carl in Jerusalem)...it is superb, and the best reason to vote for him in the WebLog 2008 contest. His info in the last 2 weeks of the war has been amazing, as usual, and if you agree, please vote early and vote often! ;)

I agree! Vote for Israel Matsav (and not Zomblog) in best Midsize blog category!

I realize I should be campaigning for myself, but i decided that I want Carl to win, more than I want to win myself, because frankly he is more deserving. So I've been voting for him and not me!

re: #3 zombie

Your Premise here is based on brain activity, correct? So someone with an IQ of 150+, injured in an accident and on life support, is stupid? And if they survive the coma to revive almost to normal, they become an idiot savant? I'm trying to establish all parameters.

As an Electronic/Computer Tech-I've known guys who could ace EVERY test on theory-but God forbid you let them touch the equipment. Intelligence, without logic and common sense, is like lipstick and Chanel on a pig.....

That said, I think I'll vote with redc1c4..

re: #133 MrPaulRevere

Choosing between Carl and Zombie.....I need the wisdom of Solomon here.

Choose Carl.

Solomon (and I) dictates it!

re: #174 zombie

You seem to have a force field that deflects strawmen and non sequitars. I wish I could borrow it.

Well, I am out of here folks. Interesting discussion and everything will give me much to think upon. See you all on the next thread.

re: #139 Killian Bundy

/linky?

Gee, I was about to log out! Now I gotta start digging. Sigh. It's getting late.

I'll give myself five minutes, see what I can unearth.

A conservative, seemly safe position is that:
"In the field of intelligence, there are three facts about the transmission of intelligence that virtually everyone seems to accept:

1. Both heredity and environment contribute to intelligence.
2. Heredity and environment interact in various ways.
3. Extremely poor as well as highly enriched environments can interfere with the realization of a person's intelligence, regardless of the person's heredity” (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p.xi).
4. Although most would accept a causal role of genetics, the exact genetic link and how it operates is very far from being understood - another point that most psychologists would agree on. It is certainly not a single gene, but a complex combination of smaller genetic markers.
5. But likewise, it is difficult to pin-down single, identifiable elements of the environment which directly influence IQ scores. Several environmental factors influence intelligence

/without education, hereditary IQ does you no good

Completely OT: The underdog, Small Dead Animals, is currently beating Ace of spades. Little Green Footballs is in third place just ahead of Atlas Slugs.
Go vote people
In the midsized blog catagory Israel Matzav holds a comfortable lead but Zombie is falling back into 4th place. Help the undead out.
Go vote
Jammie's got his catagory locked so screw him.

re: #179 Pietr

Your Premise here is based on brain activity, correct? So someone with an IQ of 150+, injured in an accident and on life support, is stupid? And if they survive the coma to revive almost to normal, they become an idiot savant? I'm trying to establish all parameters.

As an Electronic/Computer Tech-I've known guys who could ace EVERY test on theory-but God forbid you let them touch the equipment. Intelligence, without logic and common sense, is like lipstick and Chanel on a pig.....

That said, I think I'll vote with redc1c4..

You should scroll back up and start over.

You make a good point here:

I've known guys who could ace EVERY test on theory-but God forbid you let them touch the equipment. Intelligence, without logic and common sense, is like lipstick and Chanel on a pig.....

But I don't see where the rest of you post is on subject with Zombie's.

Maybe I'm just stupid.

re: #183 zombie

Gee, I was about to log out! Now I gotta start digging. Sigh. It's getting late.

I'll give myself five minutes, see what I can unearth.

/try #163, includes Bourchard's twin studies

re: #182 BlueCanuck

Well, I am out of here folks. Interesting discussion and everything will give me much to think upon. See you all on the next thread.

Goodnight Blue!

Bourchard's

/Bouchard's

re: #3 zombie

This is a good example of science gone awry. The goal of the experimenters should be to simply provide the data.

BTW, I disagree with your assertions here.

re: #174 zombie

Yes, but professors with PhDs and massive grant finding and accolades from their colleagues are stating, without the slightest reservation, that the environmental factor is unquestionably the only factor involved. Read the article in the original comment #3.

I'm only presenting the dichotomy that they brought up.

Besides which, you've got the question wrong: the discussion is not whether nature or nuture causes intelligence but rather whether poverty is a consequence or a cause of stupidity.

Aren't you kind of contradicting yourself here? "Poverty" is the "environmental factor", or "nurture", that is being suggested here (without proof, as you aptly point out). Let's leave the word games to the moonbats.

The thing is, that the usually the kid with smarter-than-average parents end up with a better-than-average environment. That's where the correlation comes in. And that's the whole fallacy in the ideologically-driven nonsense they're pedalling.

It's practically an axiom among the collectivists that everyone is the same. Not that they should have equal rights and opportunities, but that they just are the same. Therefore, if someone ends up with a different outcome, it can only be explained by their having been ripped off. Of course, the elitists among them consider themselves above these "rules", and are therefore total hypocrites. Note that this also flies in the face of the science, Darwinism, and reason that they like to pride themselves in embracing.

re: #139 Killian Bundy

/linky?

Here's what I could dredge up in my limited time:

Reference to identical twins study in Google Books result

Interesting Biology course overview:

Twin studies showed that 85% of identical twins raised together and 70% of identical twins raised apart had the same IQ. This would imply that genes have a major impact on intelligence, but how does it work? The explanation for these results could partly be that the identical twins chose (as a result of their genes) the same social environments in their lives even when they were raised apart and therefore were similar in their IQs. A study of over 212 twin studies that examined the heritability of intelligence concluded that 85 percent of identical twins raised together, and 74 percent of identical twins raised apart, had the same IQ, compared with much lower percentages for siblings raised together (45 percent) and apart (24 percent) (Devlin et al., 1997). This implies that genes have a major impact on intelligence, but how do they work? One explanation for these results is that the identical twins chose (as a result of their genes) more similar social environments in their lives than siblings would, even when they were raised apart, and thus they had more similar IQs. A more recent MRI study provides another explanation, pointing to a genetic influence for the size of some of the regions of the brain involved in cognitive function (Thompson et al., 2001). Thus, twins with identical genes are likely to produce similar brain sizes.

There's tons more out there.

re: #179 Pietr

As an Electronic/Computer Tech-I've known guys who could ace EVERY test on theory

BTW. Is training in the field of electronic a "theory" type thing?

re: #186 AmeriDan

The first paragraph was asking what the full parameters were, and questioning if I understood in part. Paragraph 2 was a statement that intelligent and smart are not synonymous. Then, I voted with red. What's not to understand?

re: #142 zombie

Good.

I wasn't really voting, but if I HAD TO, i'd vote for poverty causing a reduced, and therefore poorer reasoning capacity, worsened by impoverished experiential milieu.

/Izzat clearer, Zom? I don't like the pejorative, 'stupid'

re: #184 Killian Bundy

/without education, hereditary IQ does you no good

I liked the first part of this post a lot, but this part doesn't follow. Inborn intelligence should help you do a better job of turning the inputs of your environment into useful accumulated knowledge. In other words, if you're stupid and uneducated, you should tend to do worse than if you're smart and uneducated. So "hereditary IQ" should do you some good.

re: #140 rawmuse

Zombie, I'd put your IQ in the top 5 percentile or so.
If I may ask, were you from a rich family?

Hahahahaha!

[Inhales.]

Hahahahaha!

Put it this way: I went hungry almost every day at school, and did not have lunch. (Or breakfast.) Also: I did not take some standardized tests because there was (at the time, at least -- not sure about these days) a nominal fee which I simply could not afford.

Etc. Etc. It's a complicated story -- lack of money was one factor, but there were other factors too. But I was literally penniless and supportless until well into adulthood.

re: #192 zombie

There's tons more out there.

Right, there's a genetic component.

/now let's take the undefined "reared apart" to the extreme and see what happens, say, elite private vs. below average Chicago public school over 12 years, bet they won't correlate at 74%

re: #193 AmeriDan

You must be versed in the theories, and able to research, for most electronics jobs. One can be a teacher or an engineer based on theory alone. When one gets into the practical aspects like design, maintenance, and troubleshooting-logic and even a feel for the equipment are very important. "Those who can, do-those who can't, teach".

re: #145 Dan G.

My comment arose due to the fact that I'm apprehensive about the baggage that accompanies "Social Darwinism", it is an unnecessary package deal. This one fact doesn't necessarily lead to all of Spencer's conclusions.

I was purposely appending the "extreme" appelation of each position: Social Darwinism at one extreme, Political Correctness at the other extreme. Because, when you get right down to it, this is a fundamental question, and where people answer it often determines most of their other social opinions.

But, I freely admit that one need not ascribe to all of Spencer's theories just because of this one aspect.

re: #174 zombie

Yes, but professors with PhDs and massive grant finding and accolades from their colleagues are stating, without the slightest reservation, that the environmental factor is unquestionably the only factor involved. Read the article in the original comment #3.

I'm only presenting the dichotomy that they brought up.

Besides which, you've got the question wrong: the discussion is not whether nature or nuture causes intelligence but rather whether poverty is a consequence or a cause of stupidity.

I would postulate that poverty is a function of several variables. It can be a consequence of stupidity, as well as a cause of stupidity. It can be a consequence of bad luck from the standpoint that a child is steered poorly by dumb parents through no fault of his own. It may be due to bad public policy or bad religious policy. It may be due to the fact that some people are kept down by the powers that be. However, I do agree that the environment does not provide 100% of the explanation.

There is a constant in the equation, as well as a limit. The constant would be an individual's base intelligence level. The limit would be one's maximum learning capacity. I would hypothesize that each person's intelligence would fall between the base constant and the limiting factor as a function of time and various environmental variables.

re: #196 Optimizer

Alright fine.

/little good

re: #173 Syrah

Of course the ultimate and most authoritative study on how overall intelligence levels change over time was disguised a comedic movie.

That film was HILARIOUS! An overlooked masterpiece.

re: #194 Pietr

The first paragraph was asking what the full parameters were, and questioning if I understood in part. Paragraph 2 was a statement that intelligent and smart are not synonymous. Then, I voted with red. What's not to understand?

That's why I asked you to read the first post he/she made once more. Zombie was/is trying to keep everything in general so that the discussion doesn't bog down talking about "people coming out of comas" and stuff like that.

The gist of what Zombie said:

Which do you believe: That poverty causes stupidity (the modern PC view), or that stupidity causes poverty (the old-school harsh Social Darwinist view)?

/Not speaking for Zombie. Just my view of your post. Best Regards.

re: #179 Pietr

...That said, I think I'll vote with redc1c4..

New results as of comment #179:

Social Darwinism: 7
Political Correctness: 4
Both effects are equal: 3

Let's take Pakistan for example. Same population heredity, vastly different mean IQ scores between northern rural and southern urban.

/hell, the northern tribes are pretty much illiterates so good luck even measuring their IQ in the first place

I don't believe the study one little bit. Period. Generalizations don't work.

But, good evening anyway, Lizardnesses!

re: #199 Pietr

You must be versed in the theories, and able to research, for most electronics jobs. One can be a teacher or an engineer based on theory alone. When one gets into the practical aspects like design, maintenance, and troubleshooting-logic and even a feel for the equipment are very important. "Those who can, do-those who can't, teach".

Interesting. I think of it as proven science.

Full disclosure: I'm a maintenance/troubleshooter who has met an engineer or two that were way out there, so I can see where you're coming from.

re: #195 Karridine

Good.

I wasn't really voting, but if I HAD TO, i'd vote for poverty causing a reduced, and therefore poorer reasoning capacity, worsened by impoverished experiential milieu.

/Izzat clearer, Zom? I don't like the pejorative, 'stupid'

OK, I'll add you to the "PC" category then.

Deciphering these votes is getting more and more difficult as the thread progresses!

New results as of comment #179:

Social Darwinism: 7
Political Correctness: 5
Both effects are equal: 3

re: #198 Killian Bundy

Right, there's a genetic component.

/now let's take the undefined "reared apart" to the extreme and see what happens, say, elite private vs. below average Chicago public school over 12 years, bet they won't correlate at 74%

The problem is, we can't experiment on humans!

re: #197 zombie

Hahahahaha!

[Inhales.]

Hahahahaha!

Put it this way: I went hungry almost every day at school, and did not have lunch. (Or breakfast.) Also: I did not take some standardized tests because there was (at the time, at least -- not sure about these days) a nominal fee which I simply could not afford.

Etc. Etc. It's a complicated story -- lack of money was one factor, but there were other factors too. But I was literally penniless and supportless until well into adulthood.

Sorry to hear all that (although I find it strangely interesting).

It only makes sense to talk in terms of trends and correlation, not single "data points" like this one, but since it IS data, can you vouch for your intellectual heritage (or lack thereof)?

In my own case, lack of funds at points in my youth had to do with the number of kids in the family, divorce, and the custodial parent being physically disabled for a time. Naturally, all kinds of things figure into wealth (including "dumb luck"). It would make more sense to talk about the impact of intelligence on overall happiness - not just on wealth alone. A more intelligent person might be more likely to make better personal health decisions, for example. Like staying off drugs, staying in school, not smoking (or at least trying to quit), etc. And better social decisions (not getting mixed up with people who are only trouble). Lots of things go into overall happiness.

One might even get the idea that the fixation on wealth in this study speaks to the socialist agenda all by itself.

Forgive me lizards for I have sinned.....

re: #201 beermeister

I would postulate that poverty is a function of several variables. It can be a consequence of stupidity, as well as a cause of stupidity. It can be a consequence of bad luck from the standpoint that a child is steered poorly by dumb parents through no fault of his own. It may be due to bad public policy or bad religious policy. It may be due to the fact that some people are kept down by the powers that be. However, I do agree that the environment does not provide 100% of the explanation.

There is a constant in the equation, as well as a limit. The constant would be an individual's base intelligence level. The limit would be one's maximum learning capacity. I would hypothesize that each person's intelligence would fall between the base constant and the limiting factor as a function of time and various environmental variables.

OK, I've been beaten into submission by the reasonableness of that answer, and added it to the "Both effects are equal" category.

New results as of comment #201:

Social Darwinism: 7
Political Correctness: 5
Both effects are equal: 4

re: #211 zombie

The problem is, we can't experiment on humans!

No stem cells for you!

H/T to Seinfeld's Soup Nazi

re: #213 Fenway_Nation

Forgive me lizards for I have sinned.....

We're waiting.

re: #211 zombie

Zombie, the State of California has been experimenting with the children in public schools for three decades! That's all the Dept. of Education does! LOL

re: #216 AmeriDan

We're waiting.

Don't give us time to let our imaginations take over.

re: #204 AmeriDan

Clarification noted, and graciously accepted. My speed reading to catch up may have made me somewhat off topic/out of phase-but I'll stand by my vote...Thanks again.

Morning Lizards. Did everyone drink some Redbull today. Normally at this time the tread drags. I go away for an hour or so and there is already over 200 comments. Can't catch up.
What's everyone talking about?

Talking circles about stupidity. Pretty stupid, huh? LOL

re: #216 AmeriDan

....well....there's that stupid schoolboy crush I have on Shirley Manson, which- while perfectly legal- seems to defy the laws of common sense.

re: #212 Optimizer

Sorry to hear all that (although I find it strangely interesting).

It only makes sense to talk in terms of trends and correlation, not single "data points" like this one, but since it IS data, can you vouch for your intellectual heritage (or lack thereof)?

Both my parents were extremely intelligent, academic-wise, and extremely stupid and amoral, interpersonally and socially. You'll never meet smarter total-failures in your whole life.

re: #219 Pietr

Clarification noted, and graciously accepted. My speed reading to catch up may have made me somewhat off topic/out of phase-but I'll stand by my vote...Thanks again.

It's all good.

re: #211 zombie

The problem is, we can't experiment on humans!

I guess I'll rephrase my original postulation.

/as an individual, you're born with the genetic IQ potential you're born with and that's that, the rest is environment and a negative environmental influence, over time, can put a significant and overwhelming hitch in your intellectual development get along

re: #222 Fenway_Nation

....well....there's that stupid schoolboy crush I have on Shirley Manson, which- while perfectly legal- seems to defy the laws of common sense.

Any sin involved?

re: #216 AmeriDan

....and even though he's pretty elderly, frail and ill, I still have the urge to deck Harry Belafonte.

re: #223 zombie

In this country, it's considered a sin to not be rich. Competition is not everyone's cup of tea; thus, the homeless opt out for the streets. Depends on if money is the be all, end all of effort. Somehow, I have to think that disappointment, failure and setbacks have the potential to redirect people. Sometimes, people have soul lessons to learn too, which aren't necessarily measured by the amount in ones checking account.

BTW, I was fascinated by your study of the Weather Underground in NY and BHO!

re: #209 AmeriDan

While working as a design tech, I was assigned a piece of test equipment to proof. It failed as soon as I threw one switch. Looking at the schematic, I realized why immediately-repaired it, finished the tests, then sent it back to the engineer with a corrected drawing. He asked why I rewired the switcchanged the drawings-I explained that the mockup stops working when you ground out the main oscillator, for some strange reason....

/environment

re: #229 Pietr

While working as a design tech, I was assigned a piece of test equipment to proof. It failed as soon as I threw one switch. Looking at the schematic, I realized why immediately-repaired it, finished the tests, then sent it back to the engineer with a corrected drawing. He asked why I rewired the switch/changed the drawings-I explained that the mockup stops working when you ground out the main oscillator, for some strange reason....

PIMF...Sheesh.

re: #226 AmeriDan

Lust? Or.....if the quote at the top of the thread is any indication- stupidity.

re: #217 grassrootsrally

Zombie, the State of California has been experimenting with the children in public schools for three decades! That's all the Dept. of Education does! LOL

Tell me about it -- I'm one of their victims!

re: #227 Fenway_Nation

....and even though he's pretty elderly, frail and ill, I still have the urge to deck Harry Belafonte.

Well DUH! Who doesn't?

I'm just wondering about this sin.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Zombie,

It used to be that California schools made the innovations and exported the ideas by was of said "experimentation". Obviously, some kids, depending on the years they attended may have learned "individualized" reading or "new math", but the next crop might be perfectly oblivious to these things.

re: #200 zombie

I was purposely appending the "extreme" appelation of each position: Social Darwinism at one extreme, Political Correctness at the other extreme. Because, when you get right down to it, this is a fundamental question, and where people answer it often determines most of their other social opinions.

...

Yes and no.

I could see someone leaning toward Social Darwinism suggesting "successful people deserve to keep their rewards, which they have legitimately earned, and people should live and die by their own social decisions" which would make them libertarian (and capitalist).

I could also see them decide that they are among the "elite" as a byproduct of Social Darwinism - the "fittest" among the "fit" - and that they thereby deserve to run everybody elses's lives - and even decide who lives or dies - which would make them authoritarian (fascist/socialist).

Am I right? Or maybe you're just getting at something else entirely.

Regardless, I gotta roll now...

re: #232 Fenway_Nation

Lust and stupidity. If I had a divorce for every time that happened, I'd be- oh wait- never mind.

re: #225 Killian Bundy

I guess I'll rephrase my original postulation.

/as an individual, you're born with the genetic IQ potential you're born with and that's that, the rest is environment and a negative environmental influence, over time, can put a significant and overwhelming hitch in your intellectual development get along

Well, we're in total agreement then. I can concur with that. The only point of dissention might be the impossible-to-quantify argument over what constitutes a "negative environmental influence" so extreme that it becomes "overwhelming." The authors of the study believe that "not going to museums" frequently is severe child abuse. While I freely admit that, say, Kaspar Hauser was abused to the point of intellectual incapacity, "not going to museums" does not count.

I had a really, really bad upbringing, yet overcame it. Anything is possible.

re: #228 grassrootsrally

I was fascinated by your study of the Weather Underground in NY and BHO!

Thanks! Put a lot of work into that one.

Fat lot of good it did, though. No MSM follow-up, the fools all voted for Obama anyway. Sigh.

re: #235 grassrootsrally

Zombie,

It used to be that California schools made the innovations and exported the ideas by was of said "experimentation". Obviously, some kids, depending on the years they attended may have learned "individualized" reading or "new math", but the next crop might be perfectly oblivious to these things.

I endured some of the worst educational experimentation imaginable. I still am living with the after-effects in certain areas.

Sadly, I cannot be more specific, due to privacy concerns!

re: #239 zombie

Thanks! Put a lot of work into that one.

Fat lot of good it did, though. No MSM follow-up, the fools all voted for Obama anyway. Sigh.

The GLOW of the One blinded their eyes to truth-not your fault that they didn't wnt to know. The important thing is that you tried to make them see.....

OK, I've finally caught up with the end of this runaway thread. Freedom!

Good night.

The New York study, Zombie, is not wasted. When some get p-oed at BHO, they'll start talking.

Oh, and the final vote as of poll-closing time (comment #242), was:

Social Darwinism: 7
Political Correctness: 5
Both effects are equal: 4

re: #242 zombie

G'nite, zombie.....get some restfull/therapeutic sleep...

re: #238 zombie

The only point of dissention might be the impossible-to-quantify argument over what constitutes a "negative environmental influence" so extreme that it becomes "overwhelming."

/too easy

re: #246 Killian Bundy

A slight at the right time can be powerful according to experts. Nite Zomb!

re: #246 Killian Bundy

[Video]

/too easy

That's not child-rearing, that's soul-murder. Pure brainwashing. They can read and write, but cannot tell good from evil. The worst kind of abuse.

re: #223 zombie

Both my parents were extremely intelligent, academic-wise, and extremely stupid and amoral, interpersonally and socially. You'll never meet smarter total-failures in your whole life.

Interesting. I was going to point out that too much intelligence can lead to the pursuit of intellectual stimulation, to the exclusion of the pursuit of economic gain. Often they decide for themselves they DESERVE outstanding economic rewards anyway (because of their self-proclaimed inherent worth) - in other words, they become elitist liberals.

High intelligence can be a barrier to communication, and put-off and intimidate others, and that can hinder financial success, too. As a trend, I would expect the above-average IQ crowd to do better financially, but it probably doesn't hold as you get into the "super-smart" (for lack of a better term). It's probably good to be smarter if you're a lawyer, for example, but at some point the jury just won't be able to follow what the hell you're talking about and get pissed off at you talking down to them.

The members online now seem very nice. I have a list, however, of some Lizards I refuse to tangle with here.

re: #249 Optimizer

Oh, I wish my parents simply pursued intellectual stimulation to the exclusion of financial reward. No, they were just nuts.