Re: Linking IQ to social environment
- From: El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:58:43 -0800
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:15:26 -0800, Rita <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:52:17 -0800, El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:37:37 -0800, Rita <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:20:01 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21/12/07 17:43, in article 1vqnm3lb9m6kooch3ute1cqubtedv5p1hv@xxxxxxx, "El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
the dominance of the genetic origin of IQ is beyond question.
It is more complicated than that statement. It is
more nuanced.
First, genetic "dominance" does not display itself in cases
when the genetic factors are overwhelmed by environmental factors.
Take for instance the seed of a plant. If you plant the seed
and do not adequately water it, or is is planted in a cold period
in which it does not warm up, or it does not get enough sunlight
the plant will be stunted and will not achieve its genetic potential.
If this is done with a large group of plants surviva will not depend
on factors which are otherwise important under optimal conditions
for development. Under high stress conditions a "weak may inherit
the earth" factor can occur.
The study showed that a child's IQ will not develop to its potential
if raised institutionally. It is better to be raised in a home
situation and best raised by biological parents.
These three environments gave IQ levels of 73, 81 and 109,
which is a large increase. In fact too much to be taken
without a grain of salt. But what must be true is that
in suboptimal environments full realisation of the
potential provided by genetic inheritance does not occur.
This has been shown by other studies.
I also would doubt the IQ variations are bell shaped in a
strongly repressive environment. They are more likely
to be skewed. Therefore in the IQ average of 73 there will
be more IQs above 73 than below. With the "81s" the skewing
will be less but still present.
Undoubtedly inheritance does play into it. But without a
nuturing environment and also exposure to various opportunities
in life many never reach their potential.
True, but in terms of intelligence, genetics still determines our
ultimate potential. A good environment is important for lots of
reasons -- intelligence being just one. It's too bad we can't confront
the importance of intelligence, and the fact that we don't all arrive
on earth equally gifted. The first step is admitting that our
differences lead to a variety of outcomes in life that may impact the
need for public assistance, criminality, and financial and educational
success. Once we get beyond that hurdle, perhaps there are logical
steps that can be taken -- both political and scientific.
Yeah, we could mandate IQ tests at the earliest age one can be
administered and then issue badges to wear with the kid's IQ
on them and we would know which kids to offer opportunities to
and which ones to forget about. As in Aldous Huxley's book,
"Brave New World."
Caste System? people in Brave New World are genetically divided into
five Greek letter categories. The best and brightest intellectuals are
Alphas while the Epsilons are the manual laborers with little need for
intelligence. The other castes fill jobs somewhere in between.
Alphas: Wear grey; these are the intellectuals of society. Some
examples of professions can be World Controllers (Alpha double Plus),
Directors of Hatcheries, and Wardens. Bernard, a psychologist, is also
an Alpha.
Betas: Mulberry colored; these persons are somewhat intelligent and
often work as mechanics.
Gammas: Wear green; often work as machine minders/manipulators,
butlers, and other semi-thought-provoking jobs.
Deltas: Wear khaki, helicopter attendants, cold pressers,
screw-cutters, package packers; are mass produced and have no
individuality.
Epsilons: Wear black, can?t read or write, Sewage Workers, liftmen,
foundry-workers, carriers, semi-morons.
Sigh, your nasty little fantasies aside, we can start by acknowledging
that economic failure and criminality are seldom the result of bias
and discrimination, and most often the outcome of low intelligence,
while success in life is most often attributed to above normal
intelligence. That is a difficult concept for the liberal to accept,
because it means that the blame and vitriolic hatred that they feel
compelled to direct at the "rich" is completely unjustified.
Unfortunately liberals thrive on class hatred and envy. If science
could give pregnant women a pill that produced offspring with an IQ of
Einstein I expect all the hatred and accusations of discrimination
would disappear overnight. Meantime, I'm willing to accept that the
poor are the way they are, not because they are lazy, but because they
just lack the intellectual capacity to be anything but poor. Is that
something you are willing to accept?
I have two grandsons adopted from third world countries --
Colombia and Brazil. They came from extremely stunted living
environments. One is now age 16 and has been in a gifted
kids program since first grade. The other is only 11 months
old but videos show a bright eyed, curious and always happy
child.
I often wonder how these boys would have turned out had they
remained in the homes they were born in. And how their parents
would have tested on an IQ test.
.
- References:
- Re: Linking IQ to social environment
- From: Nomen Nescio
- Re: Linking IQ to social environment
- From: El Castor
- Re: Linking IQ to social environment
- Prev by Date: Re: In defense of waterboarding
- Next by Date: Re: jihad!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Linking IQ to social environment
- Next by thread: Re: Linking IQ to social environment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
